4.3 Article

Occurrence of selected zoonotic food-borne parasites and first molecular identification of Alaria alata in wild boars (Sus scrofa) in Italy

期刊

PARASITOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 117, 期 7, 页码 2207-2215

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00436-018-5908-5

关键词

Toxoplasma gondii; Alaria alata; Trichinella spp.; Wild boars; Zoonosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wild boar is a source of human infections with zoonotic pathogens, including food-borne parasites. With the aim of a characterization of the human exposure risk, a survey on wild boars intended for human consumption was planned, selecting three pathogens, Toxoplasma gondii, Alaria alata, and Trichinella spp., as markers of meat infection. Diaphragm muscle samples from 100 wild boars hunted in Piedmont region (Northern Italy) in two hunting seasons (2015-2016) were collected. Concerning T. gondii, a combined approach of antibody detection and molecular techniques with genotyping was performed. For the detection of A. alata and Trichinella spp., the larva migration technique and the magnetic stirrer method were employed, respectively; in addition, molecular confirmation of the morphological identification of the recovered specimen was performed. Anti-T. gondii antibodies were found in meat juice samples (43.3%) and T. gondii DNA (type II) was detected in three animals (7.1%) out of 42 seropositive examined. In none of the sampled wild boars (0%), Trichinella spp. larvae were found, whereas one animal (1%) scored positive to A. alata mesocercariae. The molecular diagnosis proved the morphological identification of the trematode. This is the first finding of A. alata in Italian wild boar population. The present study confirmed the role of wild boars as a source of parasitic zoonotic diseases and thus the risk derived for humans posed by the consumption of game meat. Considering the zoonotic implications, the results underline the importance of monitoring and surveillance of zoonotic parasites in Italian wild boar populations.

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

4.3
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