Cargando…
Diagnosis of gastrointestinal parasites in reptiles: comparison of two coprological methods
BACKGROUND: Exotic reptiles have become increasingly common domestic pets worldwide and are well known to be carriers of different parasites including some with zoonotic potential. The need of accurate diagnosis of gastrointestinal endoparasite infections in domestic reptiles is therefore essential,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4198911/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25299119 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13028-014-0044-4 |
_version_ | 1782339816854126592 |
---|---|
author | Wolf, Denis Vrhovec, Majda Globokar Failing, Klaus Rossier, Christophe Hermosilla, Carlos Pantchev, Nikola |
author_facet | Wolf, Denis Vrhovec, Majda Globokar Failing, Klaus Rossier, Christophe Hermosilla, Carlos Pantchev, Nikola |
author_sort | Wolf, Denis |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Exotic reptiles have become increasingly common domestic pets worldwide and are well known to be carriers of different parasites including some with zoonotic potential. The need of accurate diagnosis of gastrointestinal endoparasite infections in domestic reptiles is therefore essential, not only for the well-being of captive reptiles but also for the owners. Here, two different approaches for the detection of parasite stages in reptile faeces were compared: a combination of native and iodine stained direct smears together with a flotation technique (CNF) versus the standard SAF-method. RESULTS: A total of 59 different reptile faeces (20 lizards, 22 snakes, 17 tortoises) were coprologically analyzed by the two methods for the presence of endoparasites. Analyzed reptile faecal samples contained a broad spectrum of parasites (total occurence 93.2%, n = 55) including different species of nematodes (55.9%, n = 33), trematodes (15.3%, n = 9), pentastomids (3.4%, n = 2) and protozoans (47.5%, n = 28). Associations between the performances of both methods to detect selected single parasite stages or groups of such were evaluated by Fisher's exact test and marginal homogeneity was tested by the McNemar test. In 88.1% of all examined samples (n = 52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77.1 - 95.1%) the two diagnostic methods rendered differing results, and the McNemar test for paired observations showed highly significant differences of the detection frequency (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The combination of direct smears/flotation proved superior in the detection of flagellates trophozoites, coccidian oocysts and nematode eggs, especially those of oxyurids. SAF-technique was superior in detecting larval stages and trematode eggs, but this advantage failed to be statistically significant (P = 0.13). Therefore, CNF is the recommended method for routine faecal examination of captive reptiles while the SAF-technique is advisable as additional measure particularly for wild caught animals and individuals which are to be introduced into captive collections. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4198911 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-41989112014-10-17 Diagnosis of gastrointestinal parasites in reptiles: comparison of two coprological methods Wolf, Denis Vrhovec, Majda Globokar Failing, Klaus Rossier, Christophe Hermosilla, Carlos Pantchev, Nikola Acta Vet Scand Research BACKGROUND: Exotic reptiles have become increasingly common domestic pets worldwide and are well known to be carriers of different parasites including some with zoonotic potential. The need of accurate diagnosis of gastrointestinal endoparasite infections in domestic reptiles is therefore essential, not only for the well-being of captive reptiles but also for the owners. Here, two different approaches for the detection of parasite stages in reptile faeces were compared: a combination of native and iodine stained direct smears together with a flotation technique (CNF) versus the standard SAF-method. RESULTS: A total of 59 different reptile faeces (20 lizards, 22 snakes, 17 tortoises) were coprologically analyzed by the two methods for the presence of endoparasites. Analyzed reptile faecal samples contained a broad spectrum of parasites (total occurence 93.2%, n = 55) including different species of nematodes (55.9%, n = 33), trematodes (15.3%, n = 9), pentastomids (3.4%, n = 2) and protozoans (47.5%, n = 28). Associations between the performances of both methods to detect selected single parasite stages or groups of such were evaluated by Fisher's exact test and marginal homogeneity was tested by the McNemar test. In 88.1% of all examined samples (n = 52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77.1 - 95.1%) the two diagnostic methods rendered differing results, and the McNemar test for paired observations showed highly significant differences of the detection frequency (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The combination of direct smears/flotation proved superior in the detection of flagellates trophozoites, coccidian oocysts and nematode eggs, especially those of oxyurids. SAF-technique was superior in detecting larval stages and trematode eggs, but this advantage failed to be statistically significant (P = 0.13). Therefore, CNF is the recommended method for routine faecal examination of captive reptiles while the SAF-technique is advisable as additional measure particularly for wild caught animals and individuals which are to be introduced into captive collections. BioMed Central 2014-08-12 /pmc/articles/PMC4198911/ /pubmed/25299119 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13028-014-0044-4 Text en Copyright © 2014 Wolf et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Wolf, Denis Vrhovec, Majda Globokar Failing, Klaus Rossier, Christophe Hermosilla, Carlos Pantchev, Nikola Diagnosis of gastrointestinal parasites in reptiles: comparison of two coprological methods |
title | Diagnosis of gastrointestinal parasites in reptiles: comparison of two coprological methods |
title_full | Diagnosis of gastrointestinal parasites in reptiles: comparison of two coprological methods |
title_fullStr | Diagnosis of gastrointestinal parasites in reptiles: comparison of two coprological methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Diagnosis of gastrointestinal parasites in reptiles: comparison of two coprological methods |
title_short | Diagnosis of gastrointestinal parasites in reptiles: comparison of two coprological methods |
title_sort | diagnosis of gastrointestinal parasites in reptiles: comparison of two coprological methods |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4198911/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25299119 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13028-014-0044-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wolfdenis diagnosisofgastrointestinalparasitesinreptilescomparisonoftwocoprologicalmethods AT vrhovecmajdaglobokar diagnosisofgastrointestinalparasitesinreptilescomparisonoftwocoprologicalmethods AT failingklaus diagnosisofgastrointestinalparasitesinreptilescomparisonoftwocoprologicalmethods AT rossierchristophe diagnosisofgastrointestinalparasitesinreptilescomparisonoftwocoprologicalmethods AT hermosillacarlos diagnosisofgastrointestinalparasitesinreptilescomparisonoftwocoprologicalmethods AT pantchevnikola diagnosisofgastrointestinalparasitesinreptilescomparisonoftwocoprologicalmethods |