4.5 Article

Occurrence of Dipylidium caninum in fleas from client-owned cats and dogs in Europe using a new PCR detection assay

Journal

VETERINARY PARASITOLOGY
Volume 205, Issue 1-2, Pages 300-306

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.06.008

Keywords

Dipylidium caninum; Ctenocephalides felis; Ctenocephalides canis; Cats; Dogs; PCR

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ctenocephalides fleas are not only the most prevalent ectoparasites of dogs and cats but also the intermediate host of the cestode Dipylidium caninum. Due to the poor sensitivity of coproscopy to diagnose cat and dog infestation by Dipylidium, few epidemiological data are available on its prevalence among pet populations. A new PCR method was developed to specifically identify D. caninum rDNA inside single fleas. The PCR test was then applied to 5529 fleas of Ctenocephalides genus, 2701 Ctenocephalides felis fleas (1969 collected on 435 cats and 732 on 178 dogs) and 2828 Ctenocephalides canis fleas collected from 396 dogs. Precisely, 4.37% of cats were infested by a flea population infected with D. caninum. Out of the 1969 C. felis from cats, 2.23% were found to be infected with Dipylidium. From the 396 dogs infested with C. canis, 9.1%% were infested with the Dipylidium infected fleas, which is significantly higher than the observation made in cats (p = 0.03). Moreover, 3.1% of the C canis fleas were found to be infected with Dipylidium, which is not significantly different than in C fells. Looking at the number of infected fleas in the positive samples (at least one PCR positive flea in a sample), the infestation rate in samples was varied from 3 to 100% with an average of 19.7% which is in favour of easy and regular Dipylidium reinfestations of both cats and dogs in households. For the first time, the spread of D. caninum between fleas and dogs and cats is confirmed throughout Europe. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. 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