4.5 Article

Atypical Toxoplasma gondii genotypes identified in oocysts shed by cats in Germany

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PARASITOLOGY
Volume 40, Issue 3, Pages 285-292

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2009.08.001

Keywords

Toxoplasma gondii; Genotype; PCR-RFLP; Cat

Categories

Funding

  1. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung [01 K1 0765, 01 Kl 0766]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A total of 18,259 feline faecal samples from cats in Germany were collected and analysed for the presence of Toxoplasma gondii oocysts between June 2007 and December 2008. The proportion of T. gondii-positive samples collected between January and June was significantly lower than between July and December. The age of cats shedding T. gondii oocysts was not significantly different from the age of negative control cats. Forty-six T. gondii-positive samples were genetically characterised using nine PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) markers which included newSAG2, SAG3, BTUB, GRA6, c22-8, c29-2, L358, PK1 and Apico. In addition, 22 isolates that had already been partially characterised in a previous study were further typed using PCR-RFLP markers c22-8, c29-2, L358, PK1 and Apico. Genocyping of the 68 isolates revealed that the majority of T. gondii isolates (n = 54) had Type II patterns at all loci but displayed a Type I pattern at the Apico locus. Three isolates displayed Type II patterns at all loci, including the Apico locus. In addition, we detected one isolate with clonal Type III patterns at all loci and three isolates with atypical and mixed genotypes. Seven isolates could not be fully genotyped. One of those isolates displayed alleles of both Types I and II at the Apico locus. To our knowledge this is the first description of the presence of T. gondii genotypes different from the clonal Types I, II and III in the faeces of naturally infected cats. (C) 2009 Australian Society for Parasitology Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available