4.3 Article

Further characterisation of Leucocytozoon podargii in wild tawny frogmouths (Podargus strigoides) in Western Australia

Journal

PARASITOLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 118, Issue 6, Pages 1833-1840

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00436-019-06317-7

Keywords

Haematozoa; Leucocytozoon podargii; Gametocytes; Wild tawny frogmouth; ddPCR; Cytochrome b gene

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study assessed the prevalence and morphology of Leucocytozoon podargii from wild tawny frogmouths (Podargus strigoides) in Western Australia (WA) and genetically characterised the cytochrome b gene (cyt b) of L. podargii in wild tawny frogmouths from WA and Queensland (QLD). The prevalence of L. podargii in wild tawny frogmouths from WA was 93.3% (14/15; 95% CI, 68.1-99.8%). The morphological characters of L. podargii from WA were similar to L. podargii from QLD: the gametocytes were round-oval shape, approximately 8-12m in diameter; the macrogametocytes were 12.4m in diameter; microgametocytes were 10.4m in diameter; and the ratio of macrogametocytes and microgametocytes was 3:2. Sequence analysis of partial cyt b gene fragments revealed that L. podargii sequences isolated from wild tawny frogmouths in WA shared the highest similarity (99.8% at nucleotide level and 100% at protein level) with L. podargii isolated from wild tawny frogmouths in QLD. The mitochondrial 18S rRNA gene of L. podargii gametocytes was quantified using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), and the highest gametocyte load was detected in the lung. This finding corresponds to the results of the histological study. Based on the morphological and molecular studies, it was concluded that the Leucocytozoon parasite identified from wild tawny frogmouths in WA is consistent with L. podargii from wild tawny frogmouths in QLD, and the present study has genetically characterised two different L. podargii genotypes (QLD and WA) for the first time.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available