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 (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Strokowska, Natalia, Nowicki, Marek, Klich, Daniel, Didkowska, Anna, Filip-Hutsch, Katarzyna, Wiśniewski, Jan, Bełkot, Zbigniew, Anusz, Krzysztof
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