4.3 Article

Molecular investigation of Cryptosporidium in small caged pets in northeast China: host specificity and zoonotic implications

Journal

PARASITOLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 115, Issue 7, Pages 2905-2911

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00436-016-5076-4

Keywords

Cryptosporidium; Pet animals; Genotyping; Host specificity; Zoonotic potential

Categories

Funding

  1. Young Talents' Project of Northeast Agricultural University [14QC19]
  2. University Nursing Program for Young Scholars with Creative Talents in Heilongjiang Province [UNPYSCT-2015008]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study screened 151 pet-derived fecal specimens randomly collected from four commercial markets in northeast China for the presence of Cryptosporidium by genus-specific nested PCRs of the small subunit rRNA gene. Of these, 14 specimens (9.3 %) from nine species of birds, two types of rodents, and a hedgehog were positive for Cryptosporidium. Sequence analysis on the PCR-positive isolates facilitated identification of three Cryptosporidium species (C. baileyi, C. galli, and C. ubiquitum) and two Cryptosporidium genotypes (ferret genotype and avian genotype V). The study birds were affected predominantly with bird-specific C. baileyi (Atlantic canary, budgerigar, crested myna, rock dove, and silky fowl), C. galli (Chinese hwamei), and Cryptosporidium avian genotype V (Fischer's lovebird and rosy-faced lovebird). Cryptosporidium ferret genotype previously considered rodent-adapted was identified in three specimens from budgerigar, chipmunk, and red squirrel. Two specimens collected from common hill myna and hedgehog were positive for C. ubiquitum. The species of birds that can be colonized by Cryptosporidium were extended. Moreover, the data expanded the host range of Cryptosporidium ferret genotype and C. ubiquitum, especially the birds. The carriage of zoonotic C. ubiquitum in small caged pets is of public health importance.

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