Molecular characterisation of a disseminated Cryptosporidium infection in a Koi carp (Cyprinus carpio)

Yang, Rongchang; Dorrestein, Gerry M.; Ryan, Una

doi:10.1016/j.vetpar.2016.06.027

Cited by 19 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This may be via: (1) consumption of raw or undercooked fish flesh that has been contaminated with oocysts, and (2) consumption of water contaminated with oocysts shed in fish faeces. Despite these two potential routes for transmission, relatively few molecular studies have been conducted on Cryptosporidium in fish and the majority of these have been on farmed or aquarium fish (Murphy et al, 2009; Zanguee et al, 2010; Barugahare et al, 2011; Gibson-Kueh et al, 2011; Morine et al, 2012; Ryan et al, 2015; Yang et al, 2015, 2016; Palermo, 2016; Paparini et al, 2017; Couso-Pérez et al, 2018), with only a handful of studies on wild fish or, particularly, wild fish commonly consumed by people (Alvarez-Pellitero and Sitjà-Bobadilla, 2002, Palenzuela et al, 2010; Reid et al, 2010; Certad et al, 2015) (Table 3).…”

Section: Which Enteric Protozoan Pathogens Are Zoonotic and What Are mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Molecular characterisation has also identified piscine genotypes 2–9, two different C. molnari -like genotypes, more than 8 un-named novel genotypes, C. parvum , C. hominis , C. xiaoi , C. scrofarum , and rat genotype III in fish (Murphy et al, 2009; Reid et al, 2010; Zanguee et al, 2010; Barugahare et al, 2011; Morine et al, 2012; Koinari et al, 2013; Certad et al, 2015; Ryan et al, 2015; Yang et al, 2015, 2016; Palermo, 2016; Couso-Pérez et al, 2018). Both C. scrofarum and C. xiaoi have been identified in western school whiting ( Sillago vittata ) (Reid et al, 2010) and could be of some public health importance; C. scrofarum has been reported in several cases of human cryptosporidiosis (Kváč et al, 2009; Xiao, 2010), and C. xiaoi has been reported in two patients in Ethiopia (Adamu et al, 2014).…”

Section: Which Enteric Protozoan Pathogens Are Zoonotic and What Are mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are molecular tools clarifying or confusing our understanding of the public health threat from zoonotic enteric protozoa in wildlife?

Robertson

Clark

Debenham

et al. 2019

International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emerging infectious diseases are frequently zoonotic, often originating in wildlife, but enteric protozoa are considered relatively minor contributors. Opinions regarding whether pathogenic enteric protozoa may be transmitted between wildlife and humans have been shaped by our investigation tools, and have led to oscillations regarding whether particular species are zoonotic or have host-adapted life cycles. When the only approach for identifying enteric protozoa was morphology, it was assumed that many enteric protozoa colonized multiple hosts and were probably zoonotic. When molecular tools revealed genetic differences in morphologically identical species colonizing humans and other animals, host specificity seemed more likely. Parasites from animals found to be genetically identical - at the few genes investigated - to morphologically indistinguishable parasites from human hosts, were described as having zoonotic potential. More discriminatory molecular tools have now sub-divided some protozoa again. Meanwhile, some infection events indicate that, circumstances permitting, some “host-specific” protozoa, can actually infect various hosts. These repeated changes in our understanding are linked intrinsically to the investigative tools available. Here we review how molecular tools have assisted, or sometimes confused, our understanding of the public health threat from nine enteric protozoa and example wildlife hosts ( Balantoides coli - wild boar; Blastocystis sp. - wild rodents; Cryptosporidium spp. - wild fish; Encephalitozoon spp. - wild birds; Entamoeba spp. - non-human primates; Enterocytozoon bieneusi - wild cervids; Giardia duodenalis - red foxes; Sarcocystis nesbitti - snakes; Toxoplasma gondii - bobcats). Molecular tools have provided evidence that some enteric protozoa in wildlife may infect humans, but due to limited discriminatory power, often only the zoonotic potential of the parasite is indicated. Molecular analyses, which should be as discriminatory as possible, are one, but not the only, component of the toolbox for investigating potential public health impacts from pathogenic enteric protozoa in wildlife.

show abstract

Section: Which Enteric Protozoan Pathogens Are Zoonotic and What Are mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Which Enteric Protozoan Pathogens Are Zoonotic and What Are mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are molecular tools clarifying or confusing our understanding of the public health threat from zoonotic enteric protozoa in wildlife?

Robertson

Clark

Debenham

et al. 2019

International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, other Cryptosporidium species identified in other groups of vertebrates such as C. parvum, C. hominis, C. scrofarum and C. xiaoi , have also been detected in fish. Furthermore, fifteen Cryptosporidium fish genotypes, and one Cryptosporidium rat III-like genotype, have been reported (Ryan et al, 2014; Yang et al, 2015, 2016; Couso-Pérez et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence, Molecular Identification, and Risk Factors for Cryptosporidium Infection in Edible Marine Fish: A Survey Across Sea Areas Surrounding France

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cryptosporidium , a zoonotic pathogen, is able to infect a wide range of hosts including wild and domestic animals, and humans. Although it is well known that some parasites are both fish pathogens and recognized agents of zoonosis with a public health impact, little information is available concerning the prevalence of Cryptosporidium in wild aquatic environments. To evaluate the prevalence of Cryptosporidium spp. in commercially important edible marine fish in different European seas (English channel, North sea, Bay of Biscay, Celtic sea and Mediterranean sea), 1,853 specimens were collected as part of two surveys. Nested PCR followed by sequence analysis at the 18S rRNA gene locus was used to identify Cryptosporidium spp. The overall prevalence of Cryptosporidium spp. in sampled fish reached 2.3% (35 out of 1,508) in a first campaign and 3.2% (11 out of 345) in a second campaign. Sequence and phylogenetic analysis of positive samples identified Cryptosporidium parvum ( n = 10) and seven genotypes which exhibited between 7.3 and 10.1% genetic distance from C. molnari , with the exception of one genotype which exhibited only 0.5–0.7% genetic distance from C. molnari. Among 31 analyzed fish species, 11 (35.5%) were identified as potential hosts for Cryptosporidium. A higher prevalence of Cryptosporidium spp. was observed in larger fish, in fish collected during the spring-summer period, and in those caught in the North East Atlantic. Pollachius virens (saithe) was the most frequently Cryptosporidium positive species. In fish infected by other parasites, the risk of being Cryptosporidium positive increased 10-fold (OR: 9.95, CI: 2.32–40.01.04, P = 0.0002). Four gp60 subtypes were detected among the C. parvum positive samples: IIaA13G1R1, IIaA15G2R1, IIaA17G2R1, and IIaA18G3R1. These C. parvum subtypes have been previously detected in terrestrial mammals and may constitute an additional source of infection for other animals and in particular for humans. Microscopical examination of histological sections confirmed the presence of round bodies suggestive of the development of C. parvum within digestive glands. We report herein the first epidemiological and molecular data concerning the detection of Cryptosporidium in edible marine fish in European seas surrounding France broadening its host range and uncovering potential novel infection routes.

show abstract

“…Four species have been genetically described in fish as a specific host: Cryptosporidium molnari in wild gilt-head sea bream (Sparus aurata) and European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) [29,30], Cryptosporidium scophtalmi in wild turbot (Scopthalmus maximus) [31], Cryptosporidium huwii in a captive guppy (Poecilia reticulata) [32], and Cryptosporium bollandi in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare) and Oscar fish (Astronotus ocellatus) [33] (Table 2). Furthermore, many different genotypes have been identified in fish, including piscine genotypes from two to nine, different C. molnari-like isolates, and different novel and un-named genotypes [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]. Interestingly, not only specific species and genotypes have been found in fish, but also other species characteristic from other hosts, including zoonotic C. parvum, Cryptosporium xiaoi, and Cryptosporidium scrofarum and anthroponotic C. hominis [36,39,[44][45][46][47] (Table 3).…”

Section: Target Genementioning

confidence: 99%

Potential Risk of Three Zoonotic Protozoa (Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis, and Toxoplasma gondii) Transmission from Fish Consumption

Moratal

Dea-Ayuela

Cardells

et al. 2020

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades, worldwide fish consumption has increased notably worldwide. Despite the health benefits of fish consumption, it also can suppose a risk because of fishborne diseases, including parasitic infections. Global changes are leading to the emergence of parasites in new locations and to the appearance of new sources of transmission. That is the case of the zoonotic protozoa Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis, and Toxoplasma gondii; all of them reach aquatic environments and have been found in shellfish. Similarly, these protozoa can be present in other aquatic animals, such as fish. The present review gives an overview on these three zoonotic protozoa in order to understand their potential presence in fish and to comprehensively revise all the evidences of fish as a new potential source of Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis, and Toxoplasma gondii transmission. All of them have been found in both marine and freshwater fishes. Until now, it has not been possible to demonstrate that fish are natural hosts for these protozoa; otherwise, they would merely act as mechanical transporters. Nevertheless, even if fish only accumulate and transport these protozoa, they could be a “new” source of infection for people.

show abstract

Molecular characterisation of a disseminated Cryptosporidium infection in a Koi carp (Cyprinus carpio)

Cited by 19 publications

References 23 publications

Are molecular tools clarifying or confusing our understanding of the public health threat from zoonotic enteric protozoa in wildlife?

Are molecular tools clarifying or confusing our understanding of the public health threat from zoonotic enteric protozoa in wildlife?

Prevalence, Molecular Identification, and Risk Factors for Cryptosporidium Infection in Edible Marine Fish: A Survey Across Sea Areas Surrounding France

Potential Risk of Three Zoonotic Protozoa (Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis, and Toxoplasma gondii) Transmission from Fish Consumption

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About