Echinococcus and Taenia spp. from captive mammals in the United Kingdom

Boufana, Belgees; Stidworthy, Mark F.; Bell, Samuel D.; Chantrey, Julian; Masters, N.; Unwin, Steve; Wood, Raymond A.; Lawrence, R. P.; Potter, Abbey; McGarry, John; Redrobe, Sharon; Killick, Rowena; Foster, Aiden P; Mitchell, Siân; Greenwood, A. D.; Sako, Yasuhito; Nakao, Minoru; Itō, Akira; Wyatt, K.; Lord, Brigitte; Craig, Philip S.

doi:10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.05.023

Cited by 52 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These latter authors also molecularly confirmed CE caused by E. granulosus s.s. (G1) in a red-tailed guenon monkey (Cercopithecus ascanius) and also from post mortem recovered cysts removed from a Philippine spotted deer (Rusa alfredi), both held in UK zoos; a second deer (imported from France) was confirmed by molecular diagnosis to have CE cysts caused by E. ortleppi (G5). Interestingly, cysts recovered at necropsy from the abdominal cavity of a lemur (Varecia rubra) born in a UK zoo was confirmed by cox1 gene amplification to be E. equinus (G4): known to be endemic in UK, but never previously recorded in a primate (Boufana et al, 2012).…”

Section: Cystic Echinococcosis In Captive Mammalsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…hydatid morphology and histology with presence of protoscoleces, however molecular confirmation of species/genotype was not carried out (Chiou et al, 2001). Similarly, CE infection in a Burchell's zebra born in UK has been described and confirmed by PCR and DNA analysis to be caused by E. equinus, and considered to be locally acquired probably through eggcontaminated feed (Boufana et al, 2012). These latter authors also molecularly confirmed CE caused by E. granulosus s.s. (G1) in a red-tailed guenon monkey (Cercopithecus ascanius) and also from post mortem recovered cysts removed from a Philippine spotted deer (Rusa alfredi), both held in UK zoos; a second deer (imported from France) was confirmed by molecular diagnosis to have CE cysts caused by E. ortleppi (G5).…”

Section: Cystic Echinococcosis In Captive Mammalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Echinococcus granulosus: Epidemiology and state-of-the-art of diagnostics in animals

Craig

Mastin

Kesteren

et al. 2015

Veterinary Parasitology

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diagnosis and detection of Echinococcus granulosus (sensu lato) infection in animals is a prerequisite for epidemiological studies and surveillance of echinococcosis in endemic, re-emergent or emergent transmission zones. Advances in diagnostic approaches for definitive hosts and livestock, however, have not progressed equally over the last 20 years. Development of laboratory based diagnostics for canids using coproantigen ELISA and also coproPCR, have had a huge impact on epidemiological studies and more recently on surveillance during hydatid control programmes. In contrast, diagnosis of cystic echinococcosis (CE) in livestock still relies largely on conventional post-mortem inspection, despite a relatively low diagnostic sensitivity especially in early infections, as current serodiagnostics do not provide a sufficiently specific and sensitive practical pre-mortem alternative. As a result, testing of dog faecal samples by coproantigen ELISA, often combined with mass ultrasound screening programmes for human CE, has been the preferred approach for monitoring and surveillance in resource-poor endemic areas and during control schemes. In this article we review the current options and approaches for diagnosis of E. granulosus infection in definitive and animal intermediate hosts (including applications in non-domesticated species) and make conclusions and recommendations for further improvements in diagnosis for use in epidemiological studies and surveillance schemes.

show abstract

Section: Cystic Echinococcosis In Captive Mammalsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Cystic Echinococcosis In Captive Mammalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Echinococcus granulosus: Epidemiology and state-of-the-art of diagnostics in animals

Craig

Mastin

Kesteren

et al. 2015

Veterinary Parasitology

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Species rank was suggested by Thompson and McManus (2002), and today it is firmly established as an independent species, E. equinus. It seems to be a highly specific parasite of Equidae (horses, donkeys and zebras) as intermediate hosts, although it was recently recorded from a captive lemur in the UK (Boufana et al, 2012).…”

Section: Echinococcus Felidismentioning

confidence: 99%

Taxonomy and molecular epidemiology of Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato

Römig

Ebi

Wassermann

2015

Veterinary Parasitology

237

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Echinococcus granulosus, formerly regarded as a single species with a high genotypic and phenotypic diversity, is now recognised as an assemblage of cryptic species, which differ considerably in morphology, development, host specificity (including infectivity/pathogenicity for humans) and other aspects. This diversity is reflected in the mitochondrial and nuclear genomes and has led to the construction of phylogenetic trees and hypotheses on the origin and geographic dispersal of various taxa. Based on phenotypic characters and gene sequences, E. granulosus (sensu lato) has by now been subdivided into E. granulosus sensu stricto (including the formerly identified genotypic variants G1-3), Echinococcus felidis (the former 'lion strain'), Echinococcus equinus (the 'horse strain', genotype G4), Echinococcus ortleppi (the 'cattle strain', genotype G5) and Echinococcus canadensis. The latter species, as recognised here, shows the highest diversity and is composed of the 'camel strain', genotype G6, the 'pig strain', genotype G7, and two 'cervid strains', genotypes G8 and G10. There is debate whether the closely related G6 and G7 should be placed in a separate species, but more morphological and biological data are needed to support or reject this view. In this classification, the application of rules for zoological nomenclature led to the resurrection of old species names, which had before been synonymised with E. granulosus. This nomenclatural subdivision of the agents of cystic echinococcosis (CE) may appear inconvenient for practical applications, especially because molecular tools are needed for identification of the cyst stage, and because retrospective data on 'E. granulosus' are now difficult to interpret without examination of voucher specimens. However, the increased awareness for the diversity of CE agents - now emphasised by species names rather than genotype numbers - has led to a large number of recent studies on this issue and a rapid increase of knowledge on geographical spread, host range and impact on human health of the various species. E. granulosus s.s., often transmitted by sheep, is now clearly identified as the principal CE agent affecting humans. Contrary to previous assumptions, genotypes G6/7 of E. canadensis readily infect humans, although CE incidences are rather low where E. canadensis predominates. Sub-Saharan Africa seems to be the region with the highest diversity of Echinococcus, and wild carnivores may play a more important role in the lifecycles of various species than previously assumed. Still, a number of issues remain unclear, e.g. possibly diverging parameters of diagnostic tests among the species, different responses to vaccines and, importantly, possibly required modifications of clinical management due to differences in pathogenicity.

show abstract

“…Interestingly however, we recently confirmed by DNA sequencing, an E. equinus cystic infection in the abdominal cavity of a lemur (a prosimian primate) bred in captivity in the UK. 15 Human CE remains endemic in the UK, but incidence has dropped over the last 40 years, in part due to directed interventions in mid-Wales, but also because of improvements in sheep-dog management and wide availability of praziquantel-based dewormers. 7,16,17 Nevertheless, sporadic autochthonous human CE cases continue to occur both in the midWales endemic zone as well as occasionally in apparent low-risk regions of England including southwest counties.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%