Open Access
Research Article
Issue
Parasite
Volume 21, 2014
Article Number 52
Number of page(s) 7
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2014053
Published online 10 October 2014

© K. Koompapong et al., published by EDP Sciences, 2014

Licence Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Introduction

Cryptosporidium, a common intestinal parasite of humans and animals, has a diverse global distribution and 30 species with >50 genotypes have been identified [47, 60]. In Europe, C. parvum and C. hominis are responsible for >95% of human cryptosporidiosis [9, 25, 51]. In the USA, Australia, and Japan, C. hominis is more prevalent than C. parvum [29, 59, 62]. C. meleagridis, C. felis, and C. canis, predominant species in birds, cats, and dogs, respectively, are generally less common than C. hominis and C. parvum [60]. In Thailand, cryptosporidiosis prevalence rates between 2.5 and 25% have been reported in HIV-infected patients in urban areas [53]. Particularly, C. meleagridis, C. felis, and C. canis have been found and are responsible for 35.2% of all Cryptosporidium infections in Thai HIV patients [11]. The risk of non-parvum zoonotic Cryptosporidium infection is considered high in Thailand, at least in immunodepressed patients.

To date, Cryptosporidium has been studied in dogs [3, 31], cattle [18, 19, 35], mussels [54], and chickens in Thailand, [20], but no molecular epidemiological investigations of Cryptosporidium in animals other than ruminants have been conducted. The main objective of our study was to identify Cryptosporidium in animals, especially focusing on birds, dogs, and cats, by a molecular method. We selected seagulls and domestic pigeons, common migratory and domestic birds that live near bodies of water, making them potential sources of water contamination. Many people visit seaside piers and riverside areas in Thailand for relaxation, and these areas often act as sanctuaries for birds since bird-feeding is a favored activity among both visitors and local people. In these areas, birds gather at precise times, waiting for people to feed them. They tend to be unafraid of human presence, and this proximity risks making these places important transmission zones for zoonotic diseases. For similar reasons, dogs in cattle farms, as well as dogs and cats in a temple were selected for investigation. Stray dogs and cats are often cared for at temples in Thailand due to religious beliefs, and temples have become known as endemic places for intestinal parasitic infections in animals living there [56].

Materials and methods

Study sites and sample collection

Seagull samples were collected at Bang Poo Nature Reserve Pier, in Samut Prakan Province, central Thailand. Most seagulls were brown-headed gulls (Chroicocephalus brunnicephalus) and black-headed gulls (Chroicocephalus ridibundus). These birds migrate from China in October–May each year, and the samples were collected in both 2010 and 2011. Due to the small amount of feces per dropping, fecal samples from 70 seagulls were combined into one set, and a total of 13 such sets were collected.

Samples from domestic pigeons (Columba livia domestica) were collected in September 2012 from three locations: (1) near the pier in Wat Rakang Kositaram; (2) Brahmin Swing; (3) the Pramane Ground. All locations are in Bangkok, central Thailand. Fecal samples from 10 pigeons were combined into one set, and a total of seven sets were collected. All bird samples were collected immediately when the feces dropped to the ground.

One hundred eleven dog samples were collected from 105 dairy cattle farms in central Thailand (Nakhon Pathom Province: Mueang Nakhon Pathom District; Ratchaburi Province: Photharam District, Ban Pong District; Lopburi Province: Phatthana Nikhom District; Sa Kaeo Province: Watthana Nakhon District, Mueang Sa Kaeo District, Wang Sombun District) in January–April 2012. Most of the dogs were adult. They appeared to be healthy and well fed by their owners. Dog samples were collected per rectum by experienced veterinarians. In addition, 95 samples from dogs and 80 from cats were collected from a temple in central Thailand (Ban Na District, Nakhon Nayok Province) in October 2012. About 1,000 dogs and 500 cats lived around the temple area, fed by monks and volunteers. Most of the dogs and cats were adult. Some animals were kept in cages, while others were free to roam. Dog and cat fecal samples were collected at random from the grounds. Samples from all animals were kept in dry tubes in cool conditions during transportation, and preserved at −20 °C for DNA extraction. This study was approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand.

Molecular analysis

DNA was extracted from the samples using a commercially available DNA extraction kit (PSP Spin Stool DNA Kit, Stratec Inc., Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. This kit contains optimized essential washing conditions to remove inhibitors very efficiently. Fragments of SSU rRNA (830 bp) were amplified by PCR, using primers and protocols described previously [61]. The PCR products were subjected to electrophoresis in 2% agarose gel and visualized by ethidium bromide staining. All amplified products were sequenced in both directions using the secondary PCR primers on an ABI 3730xl DNA Analyzer (Applied Biosystems). The Cryptosporidium species and genotypes from each specimen were confirmed by homology of the sequenced PCR products to the sequence published in GenBank.

Results

The numbers of positive samples examined for Cryptosporidium for each collection site and the Cryptosporidium species/genotypes determined by PCR analysis of the SSU rRNA gene are summarized in Table 1. Two sets from seagulls, and one set from pigeons, were found positive for Cryptosporidium spp. with 100% homology with Cryptosporidium avian genotype III and C. meleagridis in the published sequences in GenBank (AB694729 and KF701463). Cryptosporidium was not identified in the dog samples from the cattle farms but 2/95 (2.1%) dog samples and 2/80 (2.5%) cat samples from the temple were found positive for Cryptosporidium. Genotyping analysis of the PCR-positive samples identified C. canis and C. felis, respectively, with 100% homology with the published sequences in GenBank (FJ233035 and JQ413437).

Table 1.

Number of positive samples examined for Cryptosporidium for each collection site and the Cryptosporidium species/genotypes determined by PCR analysis of the SSU rRNA gene.

Discussion

Some Cryptosporidium species and genotypes are more associated with human illness than others, and some may be related to specific pathogenicity in human cryptosporidiosis [47]. Previously in Thailand, Cryptosporidium infections have been reported in food (12.5% in green mussels) [54], and the environment (12.7% in the waters of southwest coastal areas of Thailand) [52]. Unfortunately, species/genotype identification was not possible in previous studies in Thailand due to the use of the indirect fluorescent-antibody method and because no species-specific monoclonal antibodies were available. Otherwise, more detailed information on genotyping, particularly for human-adapted species, would allow more precise public health risk assessments for cryptosporidiosis in the future [53]. Similarly, our previous study using the nested PCR technique targeting the SSU rRNA gene revealed that 11% of river- and 6% of sea-water samples in central Thailand were contaminated with several Cryptosporidium species, including C. parvum, C. meleagridis and C. serpentis. The highest river contamination levels occurred during the rainy season, and the highest sea-water levels corresponded with the presence of migratory seagulls, indicating that runoff water carries the parasite into the rivers/sea [23]. Therefore, it is important to investigate the influence of domestic animals as potential transmission reservoirs for Cryptosporidium, and their impact on public health.

The domestic pigeon is one of the most common birds around the world. Herein, C. meleagridis was found for the first time in feces of domestic pigeons. To date, three avian Cryptosporidium species (C. meleagridis, C. baileyi, and C. galli) and 11 genotypes (avian genotypes I–V, black duck genotype, Eurasian woodcock genotype, and goose genotypes I–IV) have been reported [10, 58, 59]. Among them, C. meleagridis is pathogenic, causing diarrhea in both humans and birds [8, 41, 60]. As shown in Table 2, C. meleagridis has been identified globally in livestock, such as chickens, hens, and turkeys [2, 5, 13, 17, 33, 46, 48, 50, 55]. It has also been frequently reported in a variety of pet birds in Japan and China [1, 42]. A few studies have also found C. meleagridis in wild and domestic free-living birds [24, 30, 37].

Table 2.

Avian host and country of identification of C. meleagridis and Cryptosporidium avian genotype III, from published records.

Several recent studies report occurrences of Cryptosporidium in urban pigeons that are infectious to humans [15, 36, 42, 43]. Pigeons living in urban parks may be a source of zoonotic cryptosporidiosis, affecting primarily immunocompromised people, children, and the elderly [42]. We chose to collect domestic pigeon and seagull samples for this study in locations where many tourists gather to feed the birds. Our results indicate the need for further molecular epidemiological investigations of Cryptosporidium in domestic birds and their handlers, including pigeons, to evaluate the risk they pose to humans. Cryptosporidium are also well known for waterborne transmission as they are commonly found in wastewater [7, 24]. Our previous surveillance of river- and sea-water identified several Cryptosporidium species, including C. parvum, C. meleagridis, and C. serpentis [23]. The habitats of the pigeons in our study were very close to the pier and riverside, so they may cause water contamination.

Cryptosporidium avian genotype III was detected in seagull samples (Chroicocephalus brunnicephalus and Chroicocephalus ridibundus). Two previous studies have reported Cryptosporidium in seagulls, but this is the first study to identify Cryptosporidium genotypes in seagulls using a molecular method [40, 49]. Cryptosporidium avian genotype III has been detected in a variety of birds around the world (Table 2), such as the cockatiel (Nymphicus hollandicus), galah (Eolophus roseicapilla), sun conure/parakeet (Aratinga solstitialis), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), red-billed blue magpie (Urocissa erythrorhyncha), and peach-faced lovebird (Agapornis roseicollis) [21, 33, 34, 42], but has not been identified in livestock or other migratory birds. Because seagulls migrate long distances, they may be responsible for transmitting the parasite to other countries.

The prevalence of zoonotic Cryptosporidium spp. varies in different regions of the world. As shown in Table 3, in dogs, C. canis was the most prevalent species in Australia [39], C. parvum in Italy [12], and C. muris in the USA [26]. Cryptosporidium prevalence in dogs varies – high infection rates (>10%) have been reported in the USA and Norway [16, 26], with lower prevalence (<2%) in the UK, Brazil, and Australia [6, 32, 39]. C. felis is the predominant species in cats [4, 38, 45], while Cryptosporidium species tend to differ by study area. In cats, rates are generally higher than dogs; infection rates > 10% have been reported in Colombia, Italy, and the USA [4, 44, 45], and are reportedly low in the UK [14, 57]. In the present study, 2 out of 95 (2.1%) dog and 2 out of 80 (2.5%) cat fecal samples were positive for Cryptosporidium. The PCR technique, capable of detecting low levels of Cryptosporidium infection, was used in this study because Cryptosporidium can be difficult to detect using conventional microscopy, as found in previous reports [27, 28]. However, the prevalence of Cryptosporidium in dogs and cats was low. Given the low prevalence of this parasite found in our study, we suggest that dogs and cats do not pose a serious Cryptosporidium infection risk to humans in central Thailand. We expected to detect C. parvum in the dog samples from cattle farms, due to their proximity to cattle; the prevalence of Cryptosporidium in cattle in Thailand has been reported to be 9.5–13.0% [22, 35]. However, no C. parvum was found in the dog samples from the cattle farms. The reason for this negative result is unknown; specific C. parvum subtypes may only infect dogs. Further epidemiological and subtype studies of C. parvum in dogs are required.

Table 3.

Country and Cryptosporidium species for dogs and cats, from published records.

Currently, no molecular tools are available to evaluate the subtype characteristics of C. canis or C. felis; therefore, the host specificity of these species has not been fully explored. In contrast, subtype analyses are available for C. parvum, and the variety of host specificity has been reported; some subtypes (IIa, IId) are zoonotic, while another (IIc) is anthroponotic [58]. Unfortunately, C. parvum subtypes have not been reported for dogs.

This study had some limitations. First, the sample size was not large enough to analyze the species/genotype characteristics in the region fully. Second, the birds’ fecal samples were combined into sets (10 samples = 1 set for pigeons, 70 samples = 1 set for seagulls), so that the actual prevalence could not be precisely determined. In view of the above findings, further studies are necessary as the number of seagulls, pigeons, dogs, and cats is very large and their proximity to humans makes contamination very likely.

In conclusion, we identified C. meleagridis in pigeons, Cryptosporidium avian genotype III in seagulls, C. canis in dogs, and C. felis in cats. Our study indicates that further molecular epidemiological investigations of Cryptosporidium in animals, especially pigeons, are necessary to evaluate their possible role as reservoir hosts, and the potential risk they pose to humans.

Acknowledgments

This study was partially supported by the Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. Program and a Research Grant from the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand.

References

  1. Abe N, Iseki M. 2004. Identification of Cryptosporidium isolates from cockatiels by direct sequencing of the PCR-amplified small subunit ribosomal RNA gene. Parasitology Research, 92(6), 523–526. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Akiyoshi DE, Dilo J, Pearson C, Chapman S, Tumwine J, Tzipori S. 2003. Characterization of Cryptosporidium meleagridis of human origin passaged through different host species. Infection and Immunity, 71(4), 1828–1832. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Sabi MN, Deplazes P, Webster P, Willesen JL, Davidson RK, Kapel CM. 2010. PCR detection of Angiostrongylus vasorum in faecal samples of dogs and foxes. Parasitology Research, 107(1), 135–140. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ballweber LR, Panuska C, Huston CL, Vasilopulos R, Pharr GT, Mackin A. 2009. Prevalence of and risk factors associated with shedding of Cryptosporidium felis in domestic cats of Mississippi and Alabama. Veterinary Parasitology, 160(3–4), 306–310. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baroudi D, Khelef D, Goucem R, Adjou KT, Adamu H, Zhang H, Xiao L. 2013. Common occurrence of zoonotic pathogen Cryptosporidium meleagridis in broiler chickens and turkeys in Algeria. Veterinary Parasitology, 196(3–4), 334–340. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Batchelor DJ, Tzannes S, Graham PA, Wastling JM, Pinchbeck GL, German AJ. 2008. Detection of endoparasites with zoonotic potential in dogs with gastrointestinal disease in the UK. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 55(2), 99–104. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ben Ayed L, Yang W, Widmer G, Cama V, Ortega Y, Xiao L. 2012. Survey and genetic characterization of wastewater in Tunisia for Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis, Enterocytozoon bieneusi, Cyclospora cayetanensis and Eimeria spp. Journal of Water and Health, 10(3), 431–444. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chappell CL, Okhuysen PC, Langer-Curry RC, Akiyoshi DE, Widmer G, Tzipori S. 2011. Cryptosporidium meleagridis: infectivity in healthy adult volunteers. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 85(2), 238–242. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Coupe S, Sarfati C, Hamane S, Derouin F. 2005. Detection of Cryptosporidium and identification to the species level by nested PCR and restriction fragment length polymorphism. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 43(3), 1017–1023. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fayer R. 2010. Taxonomy and species delimitation in Cryptosporidium. Experimental Parasitology, 124(1), 90–97. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gatei W, Suputtamongkol Y, Waywa D, Ashford RW, Bailey JW, Greensill J, Beeching NJ, Hart CA. 2002. Zoonotic species of Cryptosporidium are as prevalent as the anthroponotic in HIV-infected patients in Thailand. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology, 96(8), 797–802. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Giangaspero A, Iorio R, Paoletti B, Traversa D, Capelli G. 2006. Molecular evidence for Cryptosporidium infection in dogs in Central Italy. Parasitology Research, 99(3), 297–299. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodwin MA, Steffens WL, Russell ID, Brown J. 1988. Diarrhea associated with intestinal Cryptosporidiosis in turkeys. Avian Diseases, 32(1), 63–67. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gow AG, Gow DJ, Hall EJ, Langton D, Clarke C, Papasouliotis K. 2009. Prevalence of potentially pathogenic enteric organisms in clinically healthy kittens in the UK. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 11(8), 655–662. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Graczyk TK, Majewska AC, Schwab KJ. 2008. The role of birds in dissemination of human waterborne enteropathogens. Trends in Parasitology, 24(2), 55–59. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hamnes IS, Gjerde BK, Robertson LJ. 2007. A longitudinal study on the occurrence of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in dogs during their first year of life. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 49, 22. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Huber F, da Silva S, Bomfim TC, Teixeira KR, Bello AR. 2007. Genotypic characterization and phylogenetic analysis of Cryptosporidium sp. from domestic animals in Brazil. Veterinary Parasitology, 150(1–2), 65–74. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Inpankaew T, Jiyipong T, Pinyopanuwat N, Chimnoi W, Thompson RC, Jittapalapong S. 2010. Prevalence and genotyping of Cryptosporidium SPP from dairy cow fecal samples in western Thailand. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, 41(4), 770–775. [Google Scholar]
  19. Inpankaew T, Jiyipong T, Wongpanit K, Pinyopanuwat N, Chimnoi W, Kengradomkij C, Xuan X, Igarashi I, Xiao L, Jittapalapong S. 2014. Molecular detection of Cryptosporidium spp. infections in water buffaloes from northeast Thailand. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 46(2), 487–490. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jantanavivat C. 1989. Apparent inability of Cryptosporidium baileyi of chickens to infect poultry handlers in Bangkok. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 83(5), 651. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jellison KL, Distel DL, Hemond HF, Schauer DB. 2004. Phylogenetic analysis of the hypervariable region of the 18S rRNA gene of Cryptosporidium oocysts in feces of Canada geese (Branta canadensis): evidence for five novel genotypes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 70(1), 452–458. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Jittapalapong S, Pinyopanuwat N, Chimnoi W, Siripanth C, Stich RW. 2006. Prevalence of Cryptosporidium among dairy cows in Thailand. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1081, 328–335. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Koompapong K, Sukthana Y. 2012. Seasonal variation and potential sources of Cryptosporidium contamination in surface waters of Chao Phraya River and Bang Pu Nature Reserve pier, Thailand. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, 43(4), 832–840. [Google Scholar]
  24. Li N, Xiao L, Wang L, Zhao S, Zhao X, Duan L, Guo M, Liu L, Feng Y. 2012. Molecular surveillance of Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis, and Enterocytozoon bieneusi by genotyping and subtyping parasites in wastewater. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 6(9), e1809. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Llorente MT, Clavel A, Goñi MP, Varea M, Seral C, Becerril R, Suarez L, Gómez-Lus R. 2007. Genetic characterization of Cryptosporidium species from humans in Spain. Parasitology International, 56(3), 201–205. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lupo PJ, Langer-Curry RC, Robinson M, Okhuysen PC, Chappell CL. 2008. Cryptosporidium muris in a Texas canine population. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 78(6), 917–921. [Google Scholar]
  27. McGlade TR, Robertson ID, Elliot AD, Read C, Thompson RC. 2003. Gastrointestinal parasites of domestic cats in Perth, Western Australia. Veterinary Parasitology, 117(4), 251–262. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Mohsen A, Hossein H. 2009. Gastrointestinal parasites of stray cats in Kashan, Iran. Tropical Biomedicine, 26(1), 16–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Morgan UM, Xiao L, Fayer R, Lal AA, Thompson RC. 2000. Epidemiology and strain variation of Cryptosporidium parvum. Contributions to Microbiology, 6, 116–139. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Morgan UM, Xiao L, Limor J, Gelis S, Raidal SR, Fayer R, Lal A, Elliot A, Thompson RC. 2000. Cryptosporidium meleagridis in an Indian ring-necked parrot (Psittacula krameri). Australian Veterinary Journal, 78(3), 182–183. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Mori H, Mahittikorn A, Thammasonthijarern N, Chaisiri K, Rojekittikhun W, Sukthana Y. 2013. Presence of zoonotic Enterocytozoon bieneusi in cats in a temple in central Thailand. Veterinary Parasitology, 197(3–4), 696–701. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Mundim MJ, Rosa LA, Hortencio SM, Faria ES, Rodrigues RM, Cury MC. 2007. Prevalence of Giardia duodenalis and Cryptosporidium spp. in dogs from different living conditions in Uberlandia, Brazil. Veterinary Parasitology, 144(3–4), 356–359. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Nakamura AA, Simoes DC, Antunes RG, da Silva DC, Meireles MV. 2009. Molecular characterization of Cryptosporidium spp. from fecal samples of birds kept in captivity in Brazil. Veterinary Parasitology, 166(1–2), 47–51. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Ng J, Pavlasek I, Ryan U. 2006. Identification of novel Cryptosporidium genotypes from avian hosts. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 72(12), 7548–7553. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Nuchjangreed C, Boonrod K, Ongerth J, Karanis P. 2008. Prevalence and molecular characterization of human and bovine Cryptosporidium isolates in Thailand. Parasitology Research, 103(6), 1347–1353. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Ozkul IA, Aydin Y. 1994. Small-intestinal cryptosporidiosis in a young pigeon. Avian Pathology, 23(2), 369–372. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pages-Mante A, Pages-Bosch M, Majo-Masferrer N, Gomez-Couso H, Ares-Mazas E. 2007. An outbreak of disease associated with cryptosporidia on a red-legged partridge (Alectoris rufa) game farm. Avian Pathology, 36(4), 275–278. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Palmer CS, Thompson RC, Traub RJ, Rees R, Robertson ID. 2008. National study of the gastrointestinal parasites of dogs and cats in Australia. Veterinary Parasitology, 151(2–4), 181–190. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Palmer CS, Traub RJ, Robertson ID, Devlin G, Rees R, Thompson RC. 2008. Determining the zoonotic significance of Giardia and Cryptosporidium in Australian dogs and cats. Veterinary Parasitology, 154(1–2), 142–147. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Pavlasek I. 1993. The black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus L.), a new host for Cryptosporidium baileyi (Apicomplexa: Cryptosporidiidae). Veterinární medicína, 38(10), 629–638. [Google Scholar]
  41. Pedraza-Diaz S, Amar CF, McLauchlin J, Nichols GL, Cotton KM, Godwin P, Iversen AM, Milne L, Mulla JR, Nye K, Panigrahl H, Venn SR, Wiggins R, Williams M, Youngs ER. 2001. Cryptosporidium meleagridis from humans: molecular analysis and description of affected patients. Journal of Infection, 42(4), 243–250. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Qi M, Wang R, Ning C, Li X, Zhang L, Jian F, Sun Y, Xiao L. 2011. Cryptosporidium spp. in pet birds: genetic diversity and potential public health significance. Experimental Parasitology, 128(4), 336–340. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Radfar MH, Asl EN, Seghinsara HR, Dehaghi MM, Fathi S. 2012. Biodiversity and prevalence of parasites of domestic pigeons (Columba livia domestica) in a selected semiarid zone of South Khorasan, Iran. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 44(2), 225–229. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Rambozzi L, Menzano A, Mannelli A, Romano S, Isaia MC. 2007. Prevalence of cryptosporidian infection in cats in Turin and analysis of risk factors. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 9(5), 392–396. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Santin M, Trout JM, Vecino JA, Dubey JP, Fayer R. 2006. Cryptosporidium, Giardia and Enterocytozoon bieneusi in cats from Bogota (Colombia) and genotyping of isolates. Veterinary Parasitology, 141(3–4), 334–339. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Silverlas C, Mattsson JG, Insulander M, Lebbad M. 2012. Zoonotic transmission of Cryptosporidium meleagridis on an organic Swedish farm. International Journal for Parasitology, 42(11), 963–967. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Slapeta J. 2013. Cryptosporidiosis and Cryptosporidium species in animals and humans: a thirty colour rainbow? International Journal for Parasitology, 43(12–13), 957–970. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Slavin D. 1955. Cryptosporidium meleagridis (sp. nov.). Journal of Comparative Pathology, 65(3), 262–266. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Smith HV, Brown J, Coulson JC, Morris GP, Girdwood RW. 1993. Occurrence of oocysts of Cryptosporidium sp. in Larus spp. gulls. Epidemiology and Infection, 110(1), 135–143. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Soltane R, Guyot K, Dei-Cas E, Ayadi A. 2007. Prevalence of Cryptosporidium spp. (Eucoccidiorida: Cryptosporiidae) in seven species of farm animals in Tunisia. Parasite, 14(4), 335–338. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Sopwith W, Osborn K, Chalmers R, Regan M. 2005. The changing epidemiology of cryptosporidiosis in North West England. Epidemiology and Infection, 133(5), 785–793. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Srisuphanunt M, Karanis P, Charoenca N, Boonkhao N, Ongerth JE. 2010. Cryptosporidium and Giardia detection in environmental waters of southwest coastal areas of Thailand. Parasitology Research, 106(6), 1299–1306. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Srisuphanunt M, Saksirisampant W, Karanis P. 2011. Prevalence and genotyping of Cryptosporidium isolated from HIV/AIDS patients in urban areas of Thailand. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology, 105(6), 463–468. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Srisuphanunt M, Wiwanitkit V, Saksirisampant W, Karanis P. 2009. Detection of Cryptosporidium oocysts in green mussels (Perna viridis) from shell-fish markets of Thailand. Parasite, 16(3), 235–239. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Tacconi G, Pedini AV, Gargiulo AM, Coletti M, Piergili-Fioretti D. 2001. Retrospective ultramicroscopic investigation on naturally cryptosporidial-infected commercial turkey poults. Avian Diseases, 45(3), 688–695. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Traub RJ, Inpankaew T, Reid SA, Sutthikornchai C, Sukthana Y, Robertson ID, Thompson RC. 2009. Transmission cycles of Giardia duodenalis in dogs and humans in Temple communities in Bangkok – a critical evaluation of its prevalence using three diagnostic tests in the field in the absence of a gold standard. Acta Tropica, 111(2), 125–132. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Tzannes S, Batchelor DJ, Graham PA, Pinchbeck GL, Wastling J, German AJ. 2008. Prevalence of Cryptosporidium, Giardia and Isospora species infections in pet cats with clinical signs of gastrointestinal disease. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 10(1), 1–8. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Xiao L. 2010. Molecular epidemiology of cryptosporidiosis: an update. Experimental Parasitology, 124(1), 80–89. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Xiao L, Fayer R, Ryan U, Upton SJ. 2004. Cryptosporidium taxonomy: recent advances and implications for public health. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 17(1), 72–97. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Xiao L, Feng Y. 2008. Zoonotic cryptosporidiosis. FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology, 52(3), 309–323. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Xiao L, Lal AA, Jiang J. 2004. Detection and differentiation of Cryptosporidium oocysts in water by PCR-RFLP. Methods in Molecular Biology, 268, 163–176. [Google Scholar]
  62. Yagita K, Izumiyama S, Tachibana H, Masuda G, Iseki M, Furuya K, Kameoka Y, Kuroki T, Itagaki T, Endo T. 2001. Molecular characterization of Cryptosporidium isolates obtained from human and bovine infections in Japan. Parasitology Research, 87(11), 950–955. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Koompapong K, Mori H, Thammasonthijarern N, Prasertbun R, Pintong A, Popruk S, Rojekittikhun W, Chaisiri K, Sukthana Y & Mahittikorn A: Molecular identification of Cryptosporidium spp. in seagulls, pigeons, dogs, and cats in Thailand. Parasite, 2014, 21, 52.

All Tables

Table 1.

Number of positive samples examined for Cryptosporidium for each collection site and the Cryptosporidium species/genotypes determined by PCR analysis of the SSU rRNA gene.

Table 2.

Avian host and country of identification of C. meleagridis and Cryptosporidium avian genotype III, from published records.

Table 3.

Country and Cryptosporidium species for dogs and cats, from published records.

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.