| Literature DB >> 32807197 |
Laís Verdan Dib1, João Pedro Siqueira Palmer1, Camila de Souza Carvalho Class1, Jessica Lima Pinheiro1, Raissa Cristina Ferreira Ramos1, Claudijane Ramos Dos Santos1, Ana Beatriz Monteiro Fonseca2, Karen Gisele Rodríguez-Castro3, Camila Francisco Gonçalves3, Pedro Manoel Galetti3, Otilio Machado Pereira Bastos1, Claudia Maria Antunes Uchôa1, Laís Lisboa Corrêa1, Augusto Cezar Machado Pereira Bastos1, Maria Regina Reis Amendoeira4, Alynne da Silva Barbosa5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-invasive sampling through faecal collection is one of the most cost-effective alternatives for monitoring of free-living wild mammals, as it provides information on animal taxonomy as well as the dynamics of the gastrointestinal parasites that potentially infect these animals. In this context, this study aimed to perform an epidemiological survey of gastrointestinal parasites using non-invasive faecal samples from carnivores and artiodactyls identified by stool macroscopy, guard hair morphology and DNA sequencing in Itatiaia National Park. Between 2017 and 2018, faeces from carnivores and artiodactyls were collected along trails in the park. The host species were identified through macroscopic and trichological examinations and molecular biology. To investigate the parasites, the Faust, Lutz and modified Ritchie and Sheather techniques and enzyme immunoassays to detect Cryptosporidium sp. antigens were used.Entities:
Keywords: Coproparasitologic; DNA sequencing; Gastrointestinal parasites; Trichology; Wild animals
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32807197 PMCID: PMC7430008 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-020-02490-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Hosts classification based on the association of faecal macroscopy, guard hair trichology and DNA sequencing
| | |||||
| | 97 (39.7%) | ||||
| Order Carnivora | c | 42 | |||
| Order Carnivora | Family Mustelidae | 0.95 | 11 | ||
| Order Carnivora | Family Mephitidae | 0.95 | 2 | ||
| Order Carnivora | Low quality gene sequence | 0.97 | 6 | ||
| Order Carnivora | Family Canidae | c | 1 | ||
| Order Carnivora | Absent guard hair | 0.95 | 24 | ||
| Family Canidae | c | 3 | |||
| Family Felidae | 0.99 | 7 | |||
| Family Felidae | Family Canidae | – | 1 | ||
| | 13 (5.3%) | ||||
| Order Carnivora | Family Canidae | c | 8 | ||
| Order Carnivora | – | 1 | |||
| Order Carnivora | Family Mephitidae | – | 1 | ||
| Order Carnivora | Absent guard hair | – | 2 | ||
| Family Canidae | Family Canidae | c | 1 | ||
| | 2 (0.8%) | ||||
| Order Carnivora | c | 1 | |||
| Order Carnivora | Absent guard hair | – | 1 | ||
| | 56 (22.9%) | ||||
| | 52 (21.3%) | ||||
| Family Felidae | c | 3 | |||
| Family Felidae | Low quality gene sequence | 0.97 | 1 | ||
| Family Felidae | Absent guard hair | 0.94 | 24 | ||
| Family Felidae | Family Canidae | 0.94 | 6 | ||
| Family Felidae | 0.94 | 2 | |||
| Family Felidae | Family Mustelidae | 0.94 | 2 | ||
| Family Felidae | Family Mephitidae | 0.94 | 5 | ||
| Order Carnivora | Absent guard hair | – | 7 | ||
| Order Carnivora | – | 1 | |||
| Order Carnivora | – | 1 | |||
| | 2 (0.8%) | ||||
| Family Felidae | Low quality gene sequence | 0.68 | 2 | ||
| | 1 (0.4%) | ||||
| Order Carnivora | Low quality gene sequence | – | 1 | ||
| | 1 (0.4%) | ||||
| Order Carnivora | Família Mustelidae | – | 1 | ||
| | |||||
| | 12 (4.9%) | ||||
| Order Artiodactyla | Absent guard hair | – | 1 | ||
| Order Artiodactyla | Order Artiodactyla | c | 11 | ||
| Order Carnivora USa | 45 (18.4%) | ||||
| Order Carnivora | 1 | ||||
| Order Carnivora | 2 | ||||
| Order Carnivora | 1 | ||||
| Order Carnivora | Absent guard hair | Low quality gene sequence | 9 | ||
| Order Carnivora | Family Mephitidae | Low quality gene sequence | 1 | ||
| Order Carnivora | 5 | ||||
| Order Carnivora | 1 | ||||
| Order Carnivora | Low quality gene sequence | 1 | |||
| Order Carnivora | Family Mustelidae | Low quality gene sequence | 1 | ||
| Order Carnivora | Family Canidae | Low quality gene sequence | 4 | ||
| Family Felidae | 1 | ||||
| Family Felidae | Family Canidae | Low quality gene sequence | 3 | ||
| Family Felidae | Low quality gene sequence | 1 | |||
| Family Felidae | Family Mustelidae | Low quality gene sequence | 3 | ||
| Family Felidae | Absent guard hair | Low quality gene sequence | 6 | ||
| Family Felidae | Family Mephitidae | Low quality gene sequence | 4 | ||
| Family Felidae | Low quality gene sequence | 1 | |||
| Order Artiodactyla USb | 19 (7.8%) | ||||
| Order Artiodactyla | Absent guard hair | Low quality gene sequence | 6 | ||
| Order Artiodactyla | Order Artiodactyla | Low quality gene sequence | 13 | ||
a Order Carnivora Unidentified Species; b Order Artiodactyla Unidentified Species. c Total agreement among the three identification techniques
Frequency of gastrointestinal parasites in carnivorous and artiodactyls faecal samples surveyed in Itatiaia National Park, Brazil
| Helminth and protozoan structures | Order Carnivora ( | Order Artiodactyla ( | Total ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family Ascarididae | 71 (33.3%) | 4 (12.9%) | 75 (30.8%) |
| | 31 (14.5%) | – | 31 (12.7%) |
| | 29 (13.6%) | – | 29 (11.9%) |
| Nematode larvae | 25 (11.7%) | 6 (19.4%) | 31 (12.7%) |
| Thin-shelled nematode egg | 21 (9.8%) | 3 (9.7%) | 24 (9.8%) |
| | 12 (5.6%) | – | 12 (4.9%) |
| Family Diphyllobothriidae | 52 (24.1%) | – | 52 (21.3%) |
| Order Cyclophyllidea | 8 (3.7%) | – | 8 (3.3%) |
| Family Dicrocoeliidae | 10 (4.7%) | – | 10 (4.1%) |
| Phylum Acanthocephala | 1 (0.5%) | – | 1 (0.4%) |
| Subtotal of helminths positive samples | 151 (70.9%) | 10 (32.2%) | 161 (66%) |
| Non-sporulated coccidian | 10 (4.7%) | – | 10 (4.1%) |
| | – | 1 (3.2%) | 1 (0.4%) |
| | – | 6 (19.4%) | 6 (2.4%) |
| Amoebae | 3 (1.4%) | – | 3 (1.2%) |
| Coproantigens of | 42 (19.7%) | 25 (80.6%) | 67 (27.4%) |
| Subtotal of protozoan positive samples | 54 (25.3%) | 27 (87.1%) | 81 (33.2%) |
Fig. 1Collection points for faecal samples positive for parasites in Itatiaia National Park. (Arcgis version 10.5)
Fig. 2Collection points for faecal samples from carnivores and an artiodactyl positive for Cryptosporidium sp. (Arcgis version 10.5)
Fig. 3Distribution of parasitic taxa detected in fecal samples of carnivores and artiodactyl in the three parts of the park: High Part, Lower Part and Visconde de Mauá through Principal component analysis (Past version 3.2.2)
Frequency of gastrointestinal parasite morphotypes in mammal faecal samples from Itatiaia National Park, Brazil
| Morphotypes of helminth and protozoan structures | Order Carnivora US ( | Order Artiodactyla US ( | Total ( | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family Ascarididae | 25 (25.8%) | 4 (30.8%) | 1 (50%) | 20 (38.5%) | 1 (50%) | – | – | 21 (46.7%) | 4 (33.3%) | – | 75 (30.8%) |
| Morphotype 1 - | 20 (20.6%) | 2 (15.4%) | 1 (50%) | 19 (36.5%) | 1 (50%) | – | – | 15 (33.3%) | 3 (25%) | – | 61 (25%) |
| Morphotype 2 - | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 (8.3%) | – | 1 (0.4%) |
| Morphotype 3 - | 11 (11.3%) | 3 (23.1%) | – | 10 (19.2%) | – | – | – | 4 (8.9%) | – | – | 29 (11.9%) |
| | 19 (19.6%) | – | – | 4 (7.7%) | 2 (100%) | – | – | 6 (13.3%) | – | – | 31 (12.7%) |
| Morphotype 1 - | 12 (12.4%) | – | – | 1 (1.9%) | 2 (100%) | – | – | 5 (11.1%) | – | – | 18 (7.4%) |
| Morphotype 2 - | 10 (10.3%) | – | – | 4 (7.7%) | – | – | – | 2 (4.4%) | – | – | 18 (7.4%) |
| | 14 (14.4%) | – | – | 11 (21.1%) | 1 (50%) | 1 (100%) | – | 2 (4.4%) | – | – | 29 (11.9%) |
| Morphotype 1 - | 8 (8.2%) | – | – | 6 (11.5%) | 1 (50%) | 1 (100%) | – | – | – | – | 15 (6.1%) |
| Morphotype 2 - | 9 (9.3%) | – | – | 10 (19.2%) | – | 1 (100%) | – | 2 (4.4%) | – | – | 23 (9.4%) |
| Nematode larvae | 13 (13.4%) | – | – | 5 (9.6%) | – | – | 1 (100%) | 6 (13.3%) | 1 (8.3%) | 5 (26.3%) | 31 (12.7%) |
| Thin-shelled nematode egg | 9 (9.3%) | 3 (23.1%) | 1 (50%) | 4 (7.7%) | – | – | – | 4 (8.9%) | 2 (16.7%) | 1 (5.3%) | 24 (9.8%) |
| Morphotype 1 - | 7 (7.2%) | 1 (7.7%) | – | 1 (1.9%) | – | – | – | 3 (6.7%) | – | – | 12 (4.9%) |
| Morphotype 2 - | 2 (2.1%) | 1 (7.7%) | 1 (50%) | 3 (5.8%) | – | – | – | 1 (2.2%) | 2 (16.7%) | – | 10 (4.1%) |
| Morphotype 3 - | – | 1 (7.7%) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 (5.3%) | 2 (0.8%) |
| | 9 (9.3%) | – | – | 1 (1.9%) | – | – | – | 2 (4.4%) | – | – | 12 (4.9%) |
| Family Diphyllobothriidae - | 31 (32%) | – | 1 (50%) | 10 (19.2%) | – | – | – | 10 (22.2%) | – | – | 52 (21.3%) |
| Order Cyclophyllidea | 4 (4.1%) | 1 (7.7%) | – | 1 (1.9%) | – | – | – | 2 (4.4%) | – | – | 8 (3.3%) |
| Morphotype 1 - | 3 (3.1%) | 1 (7.7%) | – | 1 (1.9%) | – | – | – | 2 (4.4%) | – | – | 7 (2.9%) |
| Morphotype 2 - | 1 (1%) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 (0.4%) |
| Family Dicrocoeliidae - | 5 (5.1%) | – | – | 3 (5.8%) | – | – | – | 2 (4.4%) | – | – | 10 (4.1%) |
| Phylum Acanthocephala | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 (2.2%) | – | – | 1 (0.4%) |
| Morphotype 1–88.8 ± 9.5 × 74 ± 3.3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 (2.2%) | – | – | 1 (0.4%) |
| Morphotype 2–85.1 × 66.7 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 (2.2%) | – | – | 1 (0.4%) |
| Helminths positive samples | 72 (74.2%) | 7 (53.8%) | 1 (50%) | 35 (67.3%) | 2 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 31 (68.9%) | 5 (41.7%) | 5 (26.3%) | 161 (66%) |
| Non-sporulated coccidian | 9 (9.3%) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 (2.2%) | – | – | 10 (4.1%) |
| Morphotype 1 - | 7 (7.2%) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 7 (2.9%) |
| Morphotype 2 - | 5 (5.1%) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 5 (2%) |
| | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 (8.3%) | – | 1 (0.4%) |
| | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 (16.7%) | 4 (21%) | 6 (2.4%) |
| Amoebae - | 2 (2.1%) | – | – | 1 (1.9%) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 3 (1.2%) |
| | 13 (13.4%) | 2 (15.4%) | 2 (100%) | 14 (26.9%) | 1 (50%) | 1 (100%) | – | 9 (20%) | 10 (83.3%) | 15 (78.9%) | 67 (27.4%) |
| Protozoan positive samples | 22 (22.7%) | 2 (15.4%) | 2 (100%) | 15 (28.8%) | 1 (50%) | 1 (100%) | – | 10 (22.2%) | 10 (83.3%) | 17 (89.5%) | 81 (33.2%) |
| 79 (81.4%) | 8 (61.5%) | 2 (100%) | 43 (82.7%) | 2 (200%) | 1 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 35 (77.8%) | 10 (83.3%) | 17 (89.5%) | 198 (81.1%) | |
Fig. 4Morphotypes of helminths eggs in 400 x (A to F; H to S) and 1000 x (G) detected in faecal samples of carnivores and artiodactyls form Itatiaia National Park, Brazil. a Ascarididae family 1. b Ascarididae family 2. c Ascarididae family 3. d Trichuris sp. 1. e Trichuris sp. 2. f Nematode larvae. g Capillaria sp. 1. h Capillaria sp. 2. i Dicrocoellidae family. j Thin-shelled nematode egg 1. k Thin-shelled nematode egg 2. l Thin-shelled nematode egg 3. m Cyclophyllidea order 1. n Cyclophyllidea order 2. o Diphyllobothriidae family. p Physaloptera sp. q Acanthocephala phylum 1. r Acanthocephala phylum 2
Fig. 5Morphotypes of protozoa cysts and oocysts in 1000 x detected in faecal samples of carnivores and artiodactyls form Itatiaia National Park, Brazil. a Balantioides coli. b Amoebae. c Eimeria sp. d Non-sporulated coccidia
Fig. 6Accumulation curves for gastrointestinal parasite structures detected in faecal samples from carnivores and an artiodactyl from Itatiaia National Park, Brazil
Richness and diversity of gastrointestinal parasites in mammal faeces from Itatiaia National Park, Brazil
| Host | Richness | Shannon (H′) | Simpson |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family Canidae | |||
| | 12 | 2.2761 | 0.887 |
| | 4 | 1.2799 | 0.778 |
| | 4 | 1.3297 | 0.867 |
| Family Felidae | |||
| | 11 | 1.9662 | 0.850 |
| | 4 | 1.3322 | 0.900 |
| | 2 | 0.6931 | 1 |
| | 2 | 0.6931 | 1 |
| Family Suidae | |||
| | 6 | 1.4286 | 0.721 |
Fig. 7Dendrogram generated from cluster analysis (UPGMA) using the Sorensen similarity index for comparison of parasite structures detected in faecal samples from carnivores and an artiodactyl collected in Itatiaia National Park, Brazil
Statistical significance of Poole t test of identified hosts from Itatiaia National Park, Brazil
| pvalue | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.34 | 0.46 | 0.1 | 0.43 | 0.46 | ||
| 0.03* | 0.17 | 0.38 | 0.01* | 0.26 | 0.38 | |||
| 0.94 | 0.72 | 0.76 | 0.95 | 0.72 | ||||
| 0.7 | 0.88 | 1 | 0.7 | |||||
| 0.66 | 0.7 | 1 | ||||||
| 0.9 | 0.66 | |||||||
| 0.6 | ||||||||
*p value <0.05
Fig. 8Sample collection points plotted on the map of Itatiaia National Park, Brazil (Arcgis version 10.5)
Similarity, accession number, and publication of genic reference sequences used for classification of the hosts
| Species | 12S | ATP6 | COI | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % identity | References | References obtained from this study | % identity | References | References obtained from this study | % identity | Reference | References obtained from this study | |
| 98.04–100% | KJ508409 | MN509185 | 100% | KJ508409 | 10.5061/dryad.djh9w0vvx | – | – | – | |
| MF802260 | MN509186 | – | |||||||
| MN509187 | |||||||||
| MN509188 | |||||||||
| MN509189 | |||||||||
| MN509190 | |||||||||
| MN509191 | |||||||||
| 100% | MN444854 | MN509192 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 98.04–100% | MH746950 | MN509193 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| KT591870 | MN509194 | ||||||||
| 95.16–100% | MF802256 | MN509195 | 96.3–100% | – | 10.5061/dryad.djh9w0vvx | – | – | – | |
| MN509196 | |||||||||
| MN509197 | |||||||||
| MN509198 | |||||||||
| – | – | – | 100% | MH818222 | 10.5061/dryad.djh9w0vvx | – | – | – | |
| MH814705 | |||||||||
| – | – | – | – | – | – | 96.43–100% | MG837550 | MN608174 | |
| MN608175 | |||||||||
| MN608176 | |||||||||
Criteria used in the association of information obtained from macroscopic analysis of faeces, trichology of guard-hair and DNA sequencing for the final classification of hosts
| Host identification | |
|---|---|
| Host species | |
| 1) Association of the 3 techniques when they completely agreed with each other. | |
| 2) Association of 2 techniques when one of the methods does not provide taxonomic information about the host. | |
| 3) Trichology + DNA sequencing when macroscopy provides taxonomic information that does not agree with the obtained by other techniques. | |
4) Macroscopy + DNA sequencing DNA when: - Trichology provided information on small carnivores (mustelids and procionids), which are incompatible with the morphology of samples with large fecal volume. - Different species of small felids were identified by trichology and sequencing. | |
| Unindentified species of Carnivores / Artiodactyls | |
| 1) Complete disagreement with all information obtained by the techniques. | |
| 2) Taxonomic information from the host obtained only by a single identification technique. | |
| 3) Identification of a feline and a canine by trichology and sequencing. | |
| 4) Absence of information on gene sequencing and information on small carnivores (mustelids and procionids) by trichology, which are incompatible with the morphology of samples with large fecal volume. | |
| 5) Absence of taxonomic information on the host species. |