4.5 Article

Horses are susceptible to natural, but resistant to experimental, infection with the liver fluke, Fasciola hepatica

期刊

VETERINARY PARASITOLOGY
卷 281, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2020.109094

关键词

Liver fluke; Fasciola hepatica; Horses; Fasciolosis; Susceptibility; Serology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fasciola hepatica is a common parasite of livestock in Ireland, causing significant economic losses and affecting animal welfare. A previous abattoir study of 200 horses led to an estimated 9.5 % prevalence of infection in horses slaughtered in Ireland. However, the epidemiology and pathogenic significance of this infection in this species is not well-described. The objectives of this study were to determine the susceptibility of horses to oral challenge infection with F. hepatica metacercariae, and to document the course of the infection along with serological and biochemical response. We attempted an experimental infection of horses (n = 10; 9 geldings and 1 mare) with F. hepatica. Four were given 1000 metacercariae, four 500 metacercariae and two were sham-infected. Blood and faecal samples were taken at intervals up to 18 weeks post-infection (wpi). ELISA assays were used to assess sero-conversion in the experimental horses and also in a panel of sera from horses of known fluke status. No flukes were recovered from any of the livers, and neither were any lesions that could be attributed to F. hepatica infection observed. Coproantigen ELISA was negative throughout for all horses. Three antibody detection ELISAs, useful in diagnosing fasciolosis in other species, had limitations as diagnostic aids as determined using a panel of sera from horses of known F. hepatica infection status. This study is limited by the relatively small number of animals included, and the relatively short duration of the study period. Failure to establish infection after oral challenge raises fundamental questions on the pathophysiology and epidemiology of equine fasciolosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据