| Literature DB >> 35024333 |
Shehani U Fernando1, PreethiV Udagama1, Saminda P Fernando2.
Abstract
Understanding variations in host-parasite relationships with urbanization is vital for both, public health management and conservation of endemic animals with high anthropogenic interactions. Toque macaques (Macaca sinica) are such endemic old-world monkeys in Sri Lanka. Three macaque sub species inhabit the main climatic zones of the island; M . s. sinica , M . s. aurifrons and M . s. opisthomelas inhabit the dry zone, wet zone, and montane regions of the island, respectively. This study aimed to examine parasite prevalence in this host in association with urbanization. A total of 180 fecal samples were collected from the three sub species of toque macaques inhabiting the main climatic zones (dry, wet, and montane) in Sri Lanka; 20 samples each were collected from urban, suburban, and wild populations representing each climatic zone. Twenty gastrointestinal (GI) parasite genera types i.e. five types of protozoan cysts, two types of trematode ova, four types of cestode ova, eight types of nematode ova, and a single type of acanthocephalan ova were identified. The overall prevalence of parasites was 62% (112/180) with the highest prevalence of Strongyloides infection. In all three sub species, toque macaque populations with proximity to human settlements, including urban and suburban populations, manifested a greater GI parasitic prevalence, mean ova/cyst counts and species richness, compared to their wild counterparts. Importantly, records of five parasite types in toques in Sri Lanka are reported for the first time, while Moniliformis type was reported as a first record in free ranging macaques, globally. This study clearly demonstrated that human contact and habitat modification may influence patterns of parasitic infections in macaques. As most of the parasite types identified manifest zoonotic potential, with public health implications, close associations of macaques may cause a threat to human well-being.Entities:
Keywords: Conservation; Gastrointestinal (GI) parasites; Macaca sinica; Sri Lanka; Toque macaque; Zoonoses
Year: 2021 PMID: 35024333 PMCID: PMC8724921 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijppaw.2021.12.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl ISSN: 2213-2244 Impact factor: 2.674
Fig. 1The three subspecies of macaque's endemic to Sri Lanka. (A) Common macaque (Macaca sinica sinica), (B) dusky or pale-fronted macaque (M. s. aurifrons), and (C) hill-zone macaque (M. s. opisthomelas) (image courtesy: Madura De Silva).
Fig. 2Map of Sri Lanka with sampling localities in the dry and the wet zones and the montane region.
Fig. 3GI parasite genera types identified from fecal samples of toque macaques. I. Protozoan types: (A) Balantidium cyst, (B) Balantidium trophozoite, (C) Endolimax cyst, (D) Entamoeba cyst, (E) Isospora cyst. (F) Unidentified protozoan cyst; II. Cestode types: (G) Bertiella ova, (H) Diphyllobothrium ova, (I) Hymenolepis ova; III. Trematode types: (J–K) Unidentified trematode ova; IV. Acanthocephalan type: (L) Moniliformis ova; V. Nematode types: (M) Oesophagostomum ova, (N) Strongyloides ova, (O) Ascaris ova, (P) Trichuris ova, (Q) Strongyle/Hookworm ova, (R) Enterobius ova, (S)Trichostrongylus ova, (T) Unidentified nematode ova.
Overall parasite prevalence and prevalence of multiple infections of GI parasites in urban, suburban, and wild macaque (Macaca sinica) populations.
| Population type (n) | Overall | Prevalence of multiple infections % (n) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| parasite prevalence | Parasite free | Single infection | Two infections | Three infections | Four infections | |
| Overall urban (60) | 76.7 (46) | 23.3 (14) | 38.3 (23) | 26.7 (16) | 5.0 (3) | 6.7 (4) |
| 70.0 (14) | 30.0 (6) | 30.0 (6) | 35.0 (7) | 5.0 (1) | – | |
| 70.0 (14) | 30.0 (6) | 40.0 (8) | 20.0 (4) | 5.0 (1) | 5.0 (1) | |
| 90.0 (18) | 10.0 (2) | 45.0 (9)f | 25.0 (5) | 5.0 (1) | 15.0 (3) | |
| Overall suburban (60) | 68.3 (41) | 31.7 (19) | 35.0 (21) | 21.7 (13) | 8.3 (5) | 3.3 (2) |
| 60.0 (12) | 40.0 (8) | 35.0 (7) | 5.0 (3) | 5.0 (1) | 5.0 (1) | |
| 75.0 (15) | 25.0 (5) | 35.0 (7) | 20.0 (4) | 5.0 (3) | 5.0 (1) | |
| 70.0 (14) | 30.0 (6) | 35.0 (7) | 30.0 (6) | 5.0 (1) | – | |
| Overall wild (60) | 41.7 (25) | 54.3 (35) | 26.7 (16) | 10.0 (6) | 5.0 (3) | – |
| 40.0 (8) | 60.0 (12) | 35.0 (7) | 5.0 (1) | – | – | |
| 40.0 (8) | 60.0 (12) | 30.0 (6) | 5.0 (1) | 5.0 (1) | – | |
| 45.0 (9) | 55.0 (11) | 5.0 (3) | 20.0 (4) | 3.3 (2) | – | |
Significant difference between overall parasite prevalence in.
single parasite types in urban and wild populations of M. s. sinica (χ 2 = 4.286, p = 0.038).
Two types of parasites in urban and wild populations of M. s. aurifrons (χ 2 = 5.625, p = 0.017).
Urban and wild populations (χ 2 = 15.211, p < 0.05).
Suburban and wild populations (χ 2 = 8.620, p < 0.05).
Sub urban and wild populations of M. s. opisthomelas (χ 2 = 5.013, p = 0.025).
Urban and wild populations of M. s. sinica (χ 2 = 9.231, p = 0.002) Significant difference between macaques having infections with.
Two types of parasites in overall urban and overall wild populations (χ 2 = 5.566, p = 0.018).
Prevalence (%) of GI parasite infections in Macaca sinica aurifrons, M. s. sinica and M. s. opisthomelas in urban, suburban, and wild habitats.
| Host | Prevalence of GI parasite type% (n) (N = 180) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Habitat type | |||||||||
| Parasite genera types | U | SU | W | U | SU | W | U | SU | W |
| 20(4) | 15(3) | – | – | – | – | 5(1) | 10(2) | 5(1) | |
| 5(1) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 5(1) | – | |
| – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 5(1) | – | |
| – | – | – | 5(1) | – | 5(1) | – | – | – | |
| Unidentified protozoa | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 5(1) | – |
| Total protozoan infection | 25(5) | 15(3) | – | 5(1) | – | 5(1) | 5(1) | 20(4) | 5(1) |
| Unidentified trematodes | – | – | – | – | 5(1) | – | 5(1) | – | – |
| – | 5(1) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | 5(1) | – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | – | 25(5) | – | – | – | |
| Unidentified cestode | – | 5(1) | – | 5(1) | – | – | – | – | – |
| 45(9) | 60(12) | 35(7) | 85(17) | 70(14) | 35(7) | 60(12) | 45(9) | 30(6) | |
| 15(3) | – | 10(2) | 25(5) | 10(2) | 15(3) | 5(1) | 20(4) | – | |
| – | 5(1) | – | 15(3) | 15(3) | – | 10(2) | 10(2) | – | |
| 20(4) | 10(2) | – | 15(3) | 5(1) | – | 25(5) | 35(7) | 20(4) | |
| 20(4) | – | – | 10(2) | – | – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | 5(1) | – | – | 5(1) | 5(1) | – | |
| – | – | 5(1) | – | – | 5(1) | – | – | – | |
| Unidentified nematode | 5(1) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Total helminths infection | 70(14) | 60(12) | 40(8) | 90(18) | 70(14) | 45(9) | 70(14) | 75(15) | 40(8) |
| – | – | – | 5(1) | – | – | – | – | – | |
U, urban; S.U, suburban; W, wild.
Fig. 4Number of parasite genera types (species richness) infecting M. s. aurifrons, M. s. sinica and M. s. opisthomelas in urban, suburban, and wild habitats.
Mean parasite ova/cyst per gram (OPG/CPG) feces of different parasite types infecting Macaca sinica aurifrons, M.s. sinica and M.s. opisthomelas in urban, suburban and wild habitats.
| Host | Mean parasite OPG/CPG ± (SD) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Habitat type | |||||||||
| Parasite genera types | U | SU | W | U | SU | W | U | SU | W |
| 0.67± | 0.89± | – | – | – | – | 0.67 | 0.83± | 0.67 | |
| (0.27) | (0.38) | – | – | – | – | – | (0.71) | – | |
| 1.0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.33 | – | |
| – | – | – | 1.00 | – | 1.00 | – | 0.67 | – | |
| – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Unidentified protozoa | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.33 | – |
| Unidentified Trematodes | – | – | – | – | 0.33 | – | 0.33 | – | – |
| – | 1.33 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | 0.33 | – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | 2.53± (1.42) | – | – | – | ||
| Unidentified cestode | 2.00 | 1.00 | |||||||
| 3.33± | 1.72± | 1.00± | 4.35± | 5.14± | 1.14± | 4.83± | 1.41± | 0.67± | |
| (1.42) | (1.14) | (0.51) | (5.33) | (5.81) | (0.77) | (7.67) | (0.96) | (0.37) | |
| 1.00± | – | 0.33± | 1.00± | 1.17± | 1.33± | 1.00 | 1.25± | – | |
| (0.33) | (0) | (0.71) | (1.18) | (0.88) | (0.69) | – | |||
| 1.67 | – | 0.33± (0) | 1.33± | – | 0.67±(0.47) | 0.50±(0.24) | 0.83± | ||
| – | – | (1.21) | – | (0.43) | |||||
| 1.50± | 2.00±(0.47) | – | 4.11± (2.41) | 4.33 | – | 2.07± (1.38) | 1.14± (0.43) | – | |
| (0.88) | – | 0.67 | 0.33± | – | 1.00 | – | – | ||
| 1.50± | – | – | (0) | – | – | 1.67 | – | ||
| (0.69) | – | – | 1.33 | – | – | – | – | – | |
| – | – | – | – | – | 1.33 | – | |||
| Unidentified nematode | – | – | – | – | – | – | |||
| 0.33 | 1.33 | – | – | ||||||
| – | – | ||||||||
U-urban; S.U.- suburban; W- wild.
Infections were confined to a single individual macaque.