Cargando…
A comparison of detection methods of Alaria alata mesocercariae in wild boar (Sus scrofa) meat
Distomum musculorum suis (DMS), the mesocercariae of Alaria alata, is typically found accidently during examination of wild boar meat for Trichinella spp. The aim of the study was to compare DMS detection methods. Briefly, 232 wild boar meat samples were tested by mesocercariae migration technique (...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8322038/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34354921 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2021.07.005 |
_version_ | 1783730964299513856 |
---|---|
author | Strokowska, Natalia Nowicki, Marek Klich, Daniel Didkowska, Anna Filip-Hutsch, Katarzyna Wiśniewski, Jan Bełkot, Zbigniew Anusz, Krzysztof |
author_facet | Strokowska, Natalia Nowicki, Marek Klich, Daniel Didkowska, Anna Filip-Hutsch, Katarzyna Wiśniewski, Jan Bełkot, Zbigniew Anusz, Krzysztof |
author_sort | Strokowska, Natalia |
collection | PubMed |
description | Distomum musculorum suis (DMS), the mesocercariae of Alaria alata, is typically found accidently during examination of wild boar meat for Trichinella spp. The aim of the study was to compare DMS detection methods. Briefly, 232 wild boar meat samples were tested by mesocercariae migration technique (AMT) as a reference method; of these, 104 were found to be positive. Selected positive samples were tested again with the three other methods: compressorium method (Compressor), digestion with magnetic stirrer (Digestion) and by modified digestion with Pancreatin® bile and pancreatic enzymes (D + P). The results were analyzed by logistic regression, the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Of the 43 samples found positive by the AMT, 20 were found positive by Digestion and 25 by D + P. The Compressor identified DMS in seven of the 19 tested samples. The Digestion and D + P methods gave similar intensities (P = 0.506), i.e. 1.4 and 1.3 DMS respectively, but the AMT detected seven times higher number of parasites. The probability of detection of DMS in the meat sample by the Digestion or by D + P was higher than 0.5 when at least seven (Digestion) or five (D + P) DMS were present in the sample (AMT). The Compressor was the least sensitive method: at least 14 DMS must be present in the meat sample for detection. AMT should be considered the most accurate method of DMS detection. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8322038 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83220382021-08-04 A comparison of detection methods of Alaria alata mesocercariae in wild boar (Sus scrofa) meat Strokowska, Natalia Nowicki, Marek Klich, Daniel Didkowska, Anna Filip-Hutsch, Katarzyna Wiśniewski, Jan Bełkot, Zbigniew Anusz, Krzysztof Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl Article Distomum musculorum suis (DMS), the mesocercariae of Alaria alata, is typically found accidently during examination of wild boar meat for Trichinella spp. The aim of the study was to compare DMS detection methods. Briefly, 232 wild boar meat samples were tested by mesocercariae migration technique (AMT) as a reference method; of these, 104 were found to be positive. Selected positive samples were tested again with the three other methods: compressorium method (Compressor), digestion with magnetic stirrer (Digestion) and by modified digestion with Pancreatin® bile and pancreatic enzymes (D + P). The results were analyzed by logistic regression, the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Of the 43 samples found positive by the AMT, 20 were found positive by Digestion and 25 by D + P. The Compressor identified DMS in seven of the 19 tested samples. The Digestion and D + P methods gave similar intensities (P = 0.506), i.e. 1.4 and 1.3 DMS respectively, but the AMT detected seven times higher number of parasites. The probability of detection of DMS in the meat sample by the Digestion or by D + P was higher than 0.5 when at least seven (Digestion) or five (D + P) DMS were present in the sample (AMT). The Compressor was the least sensitive method: at least 14 DMS must be present in the meat sample for detection. AMT should be considered the most accurate method of DMS detection. Elsevier 2021-07-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8322038/ /pubmed/34354921 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2021.07.005 Text en © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Australian Society for Parasitology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Strokowska, Natalia Nowicki, Marek Klich, Daniel Didkowska, Anna Filip-Hutsch, Katarzyna Wiśniewski, Jan Bełkot, Zbigniew Anusz, Krzysztof A comparison of detection methods of Alaria alata mesocercariae in wild boar (Sus scrofa) meat |
title | A comparison of detection methods of Alaria alata mesocercariae in wild boar (Sus scrofa) meat |
title_full | A comparison of detection methods of Alaria alata mesocercariae in wild boar (Sus scrofa) meat |
title_fullStr | A comparison of detection methods of Alaria alata mesocercariae in wild boar (Sus scrofa) meat |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of detection methods of Alaria alata mesocercariae in wild boar (Sus scrofa) meat |
title_short | A comparison of detection methods of Alaria alata mesocercariae in wild boar (Sus scrofa) meat |
title_sort | comparison of detection methods of alaria alata mesocercariae in wild boar (sus scrofa) meat |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8322038/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34354921 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2021.07.005 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT strokowskanatalia acomparisonofdetectionmethodsofalariaalatamesocercariaeinwildboarsusscrofameat AT nowickimarek acomparisonofdetectionmethodsofalariaalatamesocercariaeinwildboarsusscrofameat AT klichdaniel acomparisonofdetectionmethodsofalariaalatamesocercariaeinwildboarsusscrofameat AT didkowskaanna acomparisonofdetectionmethodsofalariaalatamesocercariaeinwildboarsusscrofameat AT filiphutschkatarzyna acomparisonofdetectionmethodsofalariaalatamesocercariaeinwildboarsusscrofameat AT wisniewskijan acomparisonofdetectionmethodsofalariaalatamesocercariaeinwildboarsusscrofameat AT bełkotzbigniew acomparisonofdetectionmethodsofalariaalatamesocercariaeinwildboarsusscrofameat AT anuszkrzysztof acomparisonofdetectionmethodsofalariaalatamesocercariaeinwildboarsusscrofameat AT strokowskanatalia comparisonofdetectionmethodsofalariaalatamesocercariaeinwildboarsusscrofameat AT nowickimarek comparisonofdetectionmethodsofalariaalatamesocercariaeinwildboarsusscrofameat AT klichdaniel comparisonofdetectionmethodsofalariaalatamesocercariaeinwildboarsusscrofameat AT didkowskaanna comparisonofdetectionmethodsofalariaalatamesocercariaeinwildboarsusscrofameat AT filiphutschkatarzyna comparisonofdetectionmethodsofalariaalatamesocercariaeinwildboarsusscrofameat AT wisniewskijan comparisonofdetectionmethodsofalariaalatamesocercariaeinwildboarsusscrofameat AT bełkotzbigniew comparisonofdetectionmethodsofalariaalatamesocercariaeinwildboarsusscrofameat AT anuszkrzysztof comparisonofdetectionmethodsofalariaalatamesocercariaeinwildboarsusscrofameat |