| Literature DB >> 34941851 |
Nicharee Income1,2, Jarinee Tongshoob1, Sarawut Taksinoros3, Poom Adisakwattana4, Chawarat Rotejanaprasert5,6, Pannamas Maneekan5, Nathamon Kosoltanapiwat1.
Abstract
Gastrointestinal helminths are major enteric parasites affecting the health of important livestock ruminants, such as cattle and goats. It is important to routinely survey these animals for helminth infections to allow effective management and control programs to be implemented. A cross-sectional helminth survey carried out in Kanchanaburi Province, Thailand, revealed the infection rate of gastrointestinal helminths in cattle (n = 157) and goats (n = 117) to be 35.7% and 88%, respectively, by microscopic fecal examination, and a 100% herd prevalence was observed in goats. Eggs of strongyle nematodes, Strongyloides spp., Trichuris spp., Capillaria spp., Paramphistomum spp., and Moniezia spp. were detected, with a relatively high rate of strongyle nematode infection in both cattle (28.7%) and goats (86.3%). Mixed infections were observed in 14.3% and 35.9% of egg-positive samples from cattle and goats, respectively. Risk factor analysis showed that dairy cattle were 5.1 times more likely to be infected with strongyles than meat cattle. In contrast, meat goats were 9.3 times more likely to be infected with strongyles than dairy goats. The inverse findings in cattle and goats are discussed. Female gender was associated with a higher risk of strongyle infection in goats. DNA sequencing and in-house semi-nested PCR with primers specific to a region in the internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) were successfully used to identify strongyle genera in randomly selected egg-positive cattle (n = 24) and goat (n = 24) samples. Four strongyle genera, i.e., Cooperia spp., Haemonchus spp., Oesophagostomum spp., and Trichostrongylus spp. were identified by DNA sequencing. By semi-nested PCR, Cooperia spp. were detected as a major parasite of cattle (70.8%), whereas Haemonchus spp. were abundant in goats (100%). The majority of samples from cattle (58.3%) and goats (95.8%) were found to coinfect with at least two strongyle genera, suggesting that coinfection with multiple strongyle genera was more common than single infection in these animals.Entities:
Keywords: PCR; cattle; goat; helminth infection; risk factor; strongyle nematode
Year: 2021 PMID: 34941851 PMCID: PMC8709319 DOI: 10.3390/vetsci8120324
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Sci ISSN: 2306-7381
Figure 1Map showing the sample collection sites in Kanchanaburi, Thailand. (a) Thailand map with Province outline—the black circle indicates Kanchanaburi Province. TH, Thailand; KH, Cambodia; LA, Lao People’s Democratic Republic; MM, Myanmar; MY, Malaysia; VN, Vietnam. (b,c) Surveyed locations in Kanchanaburi. Triangles represent the cattle farms (11 farms), and circles represent the goat farms (9 farms). The names of the districts in Kanchanaburi Province are shown on the map. Images in (b,c) were adapted from the authors’ published work. (Reprinted with permission from Income, N.; Kosoltanapiwat, N.; Taksinoros, S.; Leaungwutiwong, P.; Maneekan, P.; Chavez, I.F. (2019). Copyright © 2019 American Society for Microbiology, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 85: e02420-18 doi: 10.1128/AEM.02420-18.).
Primer sequences for strongyle detection by semi-nested PCR.
| Primer | Sequence (5′-3′) | Region | Product Size (bp) 1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongyle F2 | TGGTGAAATTTTGAACGCATAG | 5.8S rRNA | - |
| Strongyle R3 | ATGCTTAAGTTCAGCGGGTA | 28S rRNA | 324–349 |
| Cooper R | CGAATACTACTATCTCCAACATG | ITS2 | 293 |
| Haemo R | GTACACTCAAATAGWGGCAACAT | ITS2 | 227 |
| Oeso R | CTCATCTAGAACGAGGATCACA | ITS2 | 143 |
| Tricho R | CAATATTTGAYAATGACCATTCG | ITS2 | 128 |
1 PCR product sizes were estimated from alignment of each primer with representatives of strongyle genera (GenBank: MH267779.1, AB908961.1, HQ844232.1, and AB908960.1).
Figure 2Morphology of gastrointestinal helminth eggs detected in cattle and goat feces by microscopic examination: (a) Strongyle egg (larvated egg); (b) Strongyloides spp. egg (larvated egg); (c) Capillaria spp. egg; (d) Trichuris spp. egg; (e) Paramphistomum spp. egg; (f) Moniezia spp. egg from goat; and (g) Moniezia spp. egg from cattle. Photos were taken under 400× magnification.
Survey of gastrointestinal helminth eggs by microscopic examination.
| Helminth Species | No. of Helminth Egg Positive Samples (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Cattle ( | Goat ( | |
| Strongyle nematodes | 45 (28.7) | 101 (86.3) |
| 1 (0.6) | 18 (15.4) | |
| 0 (0) | 7 (6) | |
| 1 (0.6) | 5 (4.3) | |
| 16 (10.2) | 9 (7.7) | |
| 1 (0.6) | 5 (4.3) | |
| Total 1 | 56 (35.7) | 103 (88) |
1 Total number of fecal samples that were helminth egg-positive. Some samples contained more than one type of egg.
The overall infection rate and univariable analysis for risk factors of strongyle infection in cattle.
| Factor | Number | Infection Rate (%) | 95% CI | χ2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 4 | 1 (25.0) | 4.55–69.93 | 0.0269 | 0.8697 |
| Female | 153 | 44 (28.8) | 22.17–36.38 | - | - |
| Age | |||||
| Young | 0 | 0 (0) | - | - | - |
| Adult | 157 | 45 (28.7) | 22.16–36.17 | - | - |
| Body condition score | |||||
| Fat | 22 | 7 (31.8) | 16.36–52.68 | 0.481 | 0.786 |
| Average | 117 | 34 (29.1) | 21.60–37.84 | - | - |
| Thin | 18 | 4 (22.2) | 9.01–45.21 | - | - |
| Oral mucosa color | |||||
| Pink | 85 | 29 (34.1) | 24.92–44.68 | 2.886 | 0.2361 |
| Pale pink | 69 | 15 (21.7) | 13.64–32.81 | - | - |
| Pale | 3 | 1 (33.3) | 6.14–79.23 | - | - |
| PCV categories | |||||
| Non-anemic | 131 | 40 (30.5) | 23.29–38.88 | 1.356 | 0.244 |
| Anemic | 26 | 5 (19.2) | 8.51–37.87 | - | - |
| Production purpose | |||||
| Dairy | 125 | 43 (34.4) | 26.64–43.08 | 9.873 | 0.002 * |
| Meat | 32 | 2 (6.3) | 1.73–20.14 | - | - |
| Management | |||||
| Intensive | 141 | 44 (31.2) | 24.14–39.26 | 4.377 | 0.036 * |
| Extensive | 16 | 1 (6.3) | 0.28–8.71 | - | - |
| Deworming interval | |||||
| ≤6 months | 30 | 0 (0) | 0.00–11.35 | 14.901 | <0.001 * |
| >6 months | 127 | 45 (35.4) | 27.65–44.06 | - | - |
| a Flocks | |||||
| A | 16 | 1 (6.3) | 1.11–28.32 | 34.499 | <0.001 * |
| B | 1 | 1 (100) | 20.65–100.00 | - | - |
| C | 14 | 6 (42.9) | 21.38–67.41 | - | - |
| D | 15 | 7 (46.7) | 24.81–69.88 | - | - |
| E | 15 | 2 (13.3) | 3.73–37.88 | - | - |
| F | 13 | 8 (61.5) | 35.52–82.29 | - | - |
| G | 13 | 6 (46.2) | 23.21–70.86 | - | - |
| H | 15 | 0 (0) | 0.00–20.39 | - | - |
| I | 20 | 6 (30) | 14.55–51.89 | - | - |
| J | 20 | 8 (40) | 21.88–61.34 | - | - |
| K | 15 | 0 (0) | 0.00–20.39 | - | - |
| Overall | 157 | 45 (28.7) | 22.16–36.18 | - | - |
* Statistically significant at p < 0.05. a Letters A–K represent cattle flocks.
The overall infection rate and univariable analysis for risk factors of strongyle infection in goats.
| Factor | Number | Infection Rate (%) | 95% CI | χ2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 18 | 11 (61.1) | 38.61–79.69 | 11.456 | <0.001 * |
| Female | 99 | 90 (90.9) | 83.61–95.14 | - | - |
| Age | |||||
| Young | 5 | 4 (80) | 37.55–96.37 | 0.177 | 0.674 |
| Adult | 112 | 97 (86.6) | 79.07–91.71 | - | - |
| Body condition score | |||||
| Fat | 15 | 12 (80) | 54.81–92.95 | 4.006 | 0.134 |
| Average | 82 | 69 (84.1) | 74.74–90.49 | - | - |
| Thin | 20 | 20 (100) | 83.88–100.00 | - | - |
| Oral mucosa color | |||||
| Pink | 37 | 26 (70.3) | 54.21–82.51 | 11.848 | 0.003 * |
| Pale pink | 79 | 74 (93.7) | 86.02–97.26 | - | - |
| Pale | 1 | 1 (100) | 20.65–100.00 | - | - |
| PCV categories | |||||
| Non-anemic | 98 | 83 (84.7) | 76.27–90.49 | 1.3597 | 0.243 |
| Anemic | 19 | 18 (94.7) | 75.36–99.06 | - | - |
| Production purpose | - | - | |||
| Dairy | 20 | 11 (55) | 34.20–74.18 | 20.052 | <0.001 * |
| Meat | 97 | 90 (92.8) | 85.84–96.46 | - | - |
| Management | |||||
| Intensive | 18 | 11 (61.1) | 38.61–79.69 | 11.456 | <0.001 * |
| Extensive | 99 | 90 (90.9) | 83.61–95.14 | - | - |
| Deworming interval | |||||
| ≤6 months | 18 | 11 (61.1) | 38.61–79.69 | 11.456 | <0.001 * |
| >6 months | 99 | 90 (90.9) | 83.61–95.14 | - | - |
| a Flocks | |||||
| a | 18 | 11 (61.1) | 38.61–79.69 | 32.197 | <0.001 * |
| b | 15 | 14 (93.3) | 70.18–98.81 | - | - |
| c | 15 | 14 (93.3) | 70.18–98.81 | - | - |
| d | 15 | 11 (73.3) | 48.04–89.10 | - | - |
| e | 19 | 19 (100) | 83.18–100.00 | - | - |
| f | 2 | 0 (0) | 0.00–65.76 | - | - |
| g | 15 | 14 (93.3) | 70.18–98.81 | - | - |
| h | 3 | 3 (100) | 43.85–100.00 | - | - |
| i | 15 | 15 (100) | 79.61–100.00 | - | - |
| Overall | 117 | 101 (86.3) | 78.93–91.40 | - | - |
* Statistically significant at p < 0.05. a Letters a–i represent goat flocks.
Figure 3Strongyle egg burden grading. Strongyle eggs were observed and graded under a microscope, and expressed as 1+, 2+, 3+ and 4+. Black bars represent strongyle egg-positive cattle. White bars represent strongyle egg-positive goats.
Multiple logistic regression of risk factors associated with strongyle infection in cattle and goats.
| Risk Factor | Coefficient | SE | z-Score | AOR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cattle | ||||||
| Production purpose | 1.6232 | 0.6349 | 2.556 | 0.011 | 5.069 | 1.461–17.595 |
| Goat | ||||||
| Gender | −1.6625 | 0.6679 | −2.489 | 0.013 | 0.189 | 0.051–0.702 |
| Production purpose | −2.2241 | 0.6286 | −3.538 | <0.001 | 0.108 | 0.032–0.371 |
Figure 4Phylogenetic analysis of ITS2 nucleotide sequences. The tree was constructed using the maximum likelihood method with a bootstrap value of 1000. Black circles represent strongyle sequences from cattle feces, and black triangles represent strongyle sequences from goat feces. Accession numbers of sequences obtained in this study and of reference nematode sequences are indicated. Bootstrap values of ≥50 are shown at the nodes. The bar represents nucleotide substitutions per site. T. discolor sequence was used as an outgroup.
Strongyle genera identified in this study using semi-nested PCR.
| Strongyle Infection | No. of Strongyle Detected (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Cattle ( | Goat ( | |
| Strongyle detection by PCR | 19 (79.2) | 24 (100) |
| 17 (70.8) | 9 (37.5) | |
| 4 (16.7) | 24 (100) | |
| 7 (29.2) | 9 (37.5) | |
| 11 (45.8) | 22 (91.7) | |
| Single infection | 5 (20.8) | 1 (4.2) |
| 4 (16.7) | - | |
| - | 1 (4.2) | |
| 1 (4.2) | - | |
| Coinfection | 14 (58.3) | 23 (95.8) |
| C + H | 2 (8.3) | 1 (4.2) |
| C + O | 1 (4.2) | - |
| C + T | 4 (16.7) | - |
| H + T | - | 9 (37.5) |
| O + T | 1 (4.2) | - |
| C + H + T | 2 (8.3) | 4 (16.7) |
| C + O + T | 4 (16.7) | - |
| H + O + T | - | 5 (20.8) |
| C + H + O + T | - | 4 (16.7) |
C, Cooperia spp.; H, Haemonchus spp.; O, Oesophagostomum spp.; T, Trichostrongylus spp.