Prevalence, species identification and genotyping Cryptosporidium from livestock and deer in a catchment in the Cairngorms with a history of a contaminated public water supply

Particle and Fibre Toxicology

Elisabeth Innes²  Andrew Wells¹  Frank Katzer²  James Green³  Remedios Ayton²  Janice Gilray²  Emily Hotchkiss²  Hannah Shaw²  Beth Wells² 

[1] The Crown Estate, 6 Bells Brae, Edinburgh EH4 3BJ, UK;Moredun Research Institute, Pentlands Science Park, Penicuik EH26 0PZ, Midlothian, UK;Scottish Water, Juniper House, Heriot Watt Research Centre, Edinburgh EH14 4AP, UK

关键词: Transmission;    Prevalence;    Genotyping;    C. parvum;    Catchment;    Water;    Deer;    Livestock;    Cryptosporidium;   

Others  :  1147207
DOI  :  10.1186/s13071-015-0684-x

 received in 2014-11-12, accepted in 2015-01-21,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The apicomplexan parasite Cryptosporidium represents a threat to water quality and public health. An important zoonotic species involved in human cryptosporidiosis from contaminated water is Cryptosporidium parvum (C. parvum), the main reservoirs of which are known to be farm livestock particularly neonatal calves, although adult cattle, sheep, lambs and wildlife are also known to contribute to catchment loading of C. parvum. This study aimed to establish Cryptosporidium prevalence, species and genotype in livestock, deer and water in a catchment with a history of Cryptosporidium contamination in the public water supply.

Methods

A novel method of processing adult ruminant faecal sample was used to concentrate oocysts, followed by a nested species specific multiplex (nssm) PCR, targeting the 18S rRNA gene, to speciate Cryptosporidium. A multilocus fragment typing (MLFT) tool was used, in addition to GP60 sequencing, to genotype C. parvum positive samples.

Results

A very high prevalence of Cryptosporidium was detected, with speciation identifying a predominance of C. parvum in livestock, deer and water samples. Four GP60 subtypes were detected within C. parvum with the majority IIaA15G2R1 which was detected in all host species and on all farms. Multilocus fragment typing further differentiated these into 6 highly related multilocus genotypes.

Conclusion

The high prevalence of Cryptosporidium detected was possibly due to a combination of the newly developed sample processing technique used and a reflection of the high rates of the parasite present in this catchment. The predominance of C. parvum in livestock and deer sampled in this study suggested that they represented a significant risk to water quality and public health. Genotyping results suggested that the parasite is being transmitted locally within the study area, possibly via free-roaming sheep and deer. Further studies are needed to verify particular host associations with subtypes/MLGs. Land and livestock management solutions to reduce Cryptosporidium on farm and in the catchment are planned with the aim to improve animal health and production as well as water quality and public health.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Wells et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Santin M. Clinical and subclinical infections with Cryptosporidium in animals. N Z Vet J. 2013; 61(1):1-10.
• [2]Ryan U, Fayer R, Xiao L. Cryptosporidium species in humans and animals: current understanding and research needs. Parasitology. 2014; 141(13):1-19.
• [3]Hunter PR, Thompson RC. The zoonotic transmission of Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Int J Parasitol. 2005; 35(11–12):1181-90.
• [4]Chalmers RM, Elwin K, Thomas AL, Guy EC, Mason B. Long-term Cryptosporidium typing reveals the aetiology and species-specific epidemiology of human cryptosporidiosis in England and Wales, 2000 to 2003. Euro surveillance: bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin. 2009;14(2).
• [5]Smith RP, Clifton-Hadley FA, Cheney T, Giles M. Prevalence and molecular typing of Cryptosporidium in dairy cattle in England and Wales and examination of potential on-farm transmission routes. Vet Parasitol. 2014; 204(3–4):111-9.
• [6]Pollock KG, Ternent HE, Mellor DJ, Chalmers RM, Smith HV, Ramsay CN et al.. Spatial and temporal epidemiology of sporadic human cryptosporidiosis in Scotland. Zoonoses Public Health. 2010; 57(7–8):487-92.
• [7]Meinhardt PL, Casemore DP, Miller KB. Epidemiologic aspects of human cryptosporidiosis and the role of waterborne transmission. Epidemiologic reviews. 1996; 18(2):118-36.
• [8]Atwill E, Johnson E, Klingborg D, Veserat G, Markegard G, Jensen W et al.. Age, geographic and temporal distribution of fecal shedding of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in cow-calf herds. Am J Vet Res. 1999; 60(4):420-5.
• [9]Sturdee AP, Bodley-Tickell AT, Archer A, Chalmers RM. Long-term study of Cryptosporidium prevalence on a lowland farm in the United Kingdom. Vet Parasitol. 2003; 116(2):97-113.
• [10]De Waele V, Berzano M, Speybroeck N, Berkvens D, Mulcahy GM, Murphy TM. Peri-parturient rise of Cryptosporidium oocysts in cows: new insights provided by duplex quantitative real-time PCR. Vet Parasitol. 2012; 189(2–4):366-8.
• [11]Chalmers RM, Robinson G, Elwin K, Hadfield SJ, Thomas E, Watkins J et al.. Detection of Cryptosporidium species and sources of contamination with Cryptosporidium hominis during a waterborne outbreak in North West Wales. Journal of water and health. 2010; 8(2):311-25.
• [12]Robinson G, Chalmers RM, Stapleton C, Palmer SR, Watkins J, Francis C et al.. A whole water catchment approach to investigating the origin and distribution of Cryptosporidium species. J Appl Microbiol. 2011; 111(3):717-30.
• [13]Robinson G, Chalmers RM. Assessment of polymorphic genetic markers for multi-locus typing of Cryptosporidium parvum and Cryptosporidium hominis. Exp Parasitol. 2012; 132(2):200-15.
• [14]Hall T. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis programme for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucl Acids Symp Ser. 1999; 41:95-8.
• [15]Brook EJ, Anthony Hart C, French NP, Christley RM. Molecular epidemiology of Cryptosporidium subtypes in cattle in England. Vet J. 2009; 179(3):378-82.
• [16]Francisco A, Vaz C, Monteiro P, Melo-Cristino J, Ramirez M, Carrico J. PHYLOViZ: phylogenetic inference and data visualization for sequence based typing methods. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012; 13:87. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Xiao L. Molecular epidemiology of cryptosporidiosis: an update. Exp Parasitol. 2010; 124(1):80-9.
• [18]Santin M, Trout JM, Xiao L, Zhou L, Greiner E, Fayer R. Prevalence and age-related variation of Cryptosporidium species and genotypes in dairy calves. Vet Parasitol. 2004; 122(2):103-17.
• [19]Wilkes G, Ruecker NJ, Neumann NF, Gannon VP, Jokinen C, Sunohara M et al.. Spatiotemporal analysis of Cryptosporidium species/genotypes and relationships with other zoonotic pathogens in surface water from mixed-use watersheds. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013; 79(2):434-48.
• [20]Silverlas C, Bjorkman C, Egenvall A. Systematic review and meta-analyses of the effects of halofuginone against calf cryptosporidiosis. Prev Vet Med. 2009; 91(2–4):73-84.
• [21]Atwill ER, Pereira M. Lack of detectable shedding of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts by periparturient dairy cattle. J Parasitol. 2003; 89(6):1234-6.
• [22]Abeywardena H, Jex AR, Firestone SM, McPhee S, Driessen N, Koehler AV et al.. Assessing calves as carriers of Cryptosporidium and Giardia with zoonotic potential on dairy and beef farms within a water catchment area by mutation scanning. Electrophoresis. 2013; 34(15):2259-67.
• [23]Shrestha RD, Grinberg A, Dukkipati VS, Pleydell EJ, Prattley DJ, French NP. Infections with multiple Cryptosporidium species and new genetic variants in young dairy calves on a farm located within a drinking water catchment area in New Zealand. Vet Parasitol. 2014; 202(3–4):287-91.
• [24]Faubert GM, Litvinsky Y. Natural transmission of Cryptosporidium parvum between dams and calves on a dairy farm. J Parasitol. 2000; 86(3):495-500.
• [25]Mueller-Doblies D, Giles M, Elwin K, Smith RP, Clifton-Hadley FA, Chalmers RM. Distribution of Cryptosporidium species in sheep in the UK. Vet Parasitol. 2008; 154(3–4):214-9.
• [26]Xiao L, Fayer R, Ryan U, Upton SJ. Cryptosporidium taxonomy: recent advances and implications for public health. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004; 17(1):72-97.
• [27]Yang R, Jacobson C, Gardner G, Carmichael I, Campbell AJ, Ng-Hublin J et al.. Longitudinal prevalence, oocyst shedding and molecular characterisation of Cryptosporidium species in sheep across four states in Australia. Vet Parasitol. 2014; 200(1–2):50-8.
• [28]Skerrett H, Holland C. Asymptomatic shedding of Cryptosporidium oocysts by red deer hinds and calves. Veterinary Parasitology. 2001; 94:239-46.
• [29]Samadder SR, Ziegler P, Murphy TM, Holden NM. Spatial distribution of risk factors for Cryptosporidium spp. transport in an Irish catchment. Water environment research: a research publication of the Water Environment Federation. 2010; 82(8):750-8.
• [30]Castro-Hermida JA, Garcia-Presedo I, Gonzalez-Warleta M, Mezo M. Prevalence of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and wild boars (Sus scrofa) in Galicia (NW, Spain). Vet Parasitol. 2011; 179(1–3):216-9.
• [31]McDonald S, Berzano M, Ziegler P, Murphy TM, Holden NM. Qualitative risk assessment of surface water contamination with Cryptosporidium Sp oocysts: a case study of three agricultural catchments. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 2011; 17(4):813-25.
• [32]Norman SA, Hobbs RC, Wuertz S, Melli A, Beckett LA, Chouicha N et al.. Fecal pathogen pollution: sources and patterns in water and sediment samples from the upper Cook Inlet, Alaska ecosystem. Environmental science Processes & impacts. 2013; 15(5):1041-51.
• [33]Anderson BC. Location of Cryptosporidia: review of the literature and experimental infections in calves. Am J Vet Res. 1984; 45(7):1474-7.