4.7 Article

A non-invasive feather-based methodology for the detection of blood parasites (Haemosporida)

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-43932-y

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study shows that using blood from feather shafts for detecting haemosporidian infections can be a beneficial and less invasive alternative to blood sampling. Storage temperature and bird characteristics can affect DNA recovery and the probability of detecting haemosporidians.
Blood parasite (haemosporidian) infections are conventionally detected using blood samples; this implies capturing and handling birds to obtain them, which induces stress and causes pain. Feathers have blood vessels, and some blood could be preserved in the feather's shaft after moulting. We used feather DNA for detecting haemosporidians by PCR testing in diverse scenarios. First, haemosporidian DNA was detected in feathers from carcasses of infected birds, proving the feasibility of the approach. Storage temperature affected DNA recovery, with maximum retrieval and haemosporidian detection at the lowest temperature (- 20 degrees C). All feather types from infected birds kept at optimal conditions yielded haemosporidian DNA. Parasite detection by PCR was correlated with DNA yield, which was significantly higher in heavier birds, flight feathers, and more feathers per pool. Lastly, haemosporidians were detected employing feathers moulted from wild and captive birds to estimate infection prevalence. We show for the first time that using blood from feather shafts for haemosporidian detection can be an advantageous and less invasive alternative to blood sampling if feathers are optimally preserved. This method could contribute to uncovering haemosporidian infections in endangered and elusive birds, and it might facilitate routine screening in captive birds, thereby improving infection detection, prevention, and control.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available