| Literature DB >> 32238624 |
Makoto Matsubayashi1,2,3, Tomoyuki Shibahara1,4, Tomohide Matsuo5, Toshimitsu Hatabu6, Junya Yamagishi7,8, Kazumi Sasai1,2, Takashi Isobe9.
Abstract
There have been no reports of the prevalence of Eimeria spp. in poultry breeding farms in Japan unlike those of broiler farms. From 2017 to 2018, we examined the prevalence of Eimeria spp. on breeding farms in Japan by oocyst morphology and PCR analyses. A total of 143 samples was collected from 37 breeding farms in 21 prefectures of Japan. We detected oocysts of seven species at 34 of 37 breeding farms by PCR, and we identified E. brunetti at 51.5% of farms found to be positive for Eimeria. The differences in the identification of Eimeria spp. between the morphology and PCR assay methods of oocysts were pronounced for E. maxima and E. necatrix. We confirmed that molecular tools were more suitable for accurately estimating prevalence of Eimeria spp., and these findings suggest that E. brunetti could be widespread in Japan.Entities:
Keywords: Eimeria; Eimeria brunetti; PCR; breeding farm; chicken
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32238624 PMCID: PMC7273590 DOI: 10.1292/jvms.19-0661
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Vet Med Sci ISSN: 0916-7250 Impact factor: 1.267
Prevalence of Eimeria spp. among oocysts detected from 33 positive farms and identified by morphological characteristics and PCR
| Species | Number of oocysts identified by method | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Morphology | PCR | Both methodsa) | |
| 31 | 30 | 30 (96.8%) | |
| 14 | 17 | 13 (72.2%) | |
| 4 | 16 | 1 (5.3%) | |
| 15 | 30 | 14 (45.2%) | |
| 0 | 23 | 0 (0%) | |
| 21 | 20 | 14 (51.9%) | |
| 16 | 12 | 6 (27.3%) | |
a) Number of farms of each Eimeria spp. identified by both morphological characteristic and PCR methods. Percentages identical to both methods are calculated as (number of farms identified by both methods)/ (number of farms identified by morphological characteristics + number of farms identified by PCR–number of farms identified by both methods).
Detection of Eimeria spp. by PCR and use of live vaccines in 37 examined farms
| Vaccinationsa) | None | Unknown | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paracox® | Paracox® + Neca | TAM + Neca | TAM + Paracox® + Neca | ||||
| No. of farms for | 33 | 2 | 9 | 15 | 4 | 1 | 2 |
| (No. of examined farms) | (37) | (2) | (9) | (17) | (4) | (3) | (2) |
| 30 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| 17 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |
| 16 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| 30 | 13 | 1 | 2 | ||||
| 23 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 20 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
| 12 | 1 | 2 | |||||
a) TAM™ vaccine includes strains of E. acervulina, E. maxima, E. tenella, Neca™ vaccine includes strain of E. necatrix, and Paracox®-5 includes strains of E. acervulina, E. maxima, E. mitis and E. tenella. Underlined numbers indicate the possibility that wild and vaccine strains are included.