College of Veterinary Medicine / University of Mosul
  • Register
  • Login
  • العربیة

Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Sciences

Notice

As part of Open Journals’ initiatives, we create website for scholarly open access journals. If you are responsible for this journal and would like to know more about how to use the editorial system, please visit our website at https://ejournalplus.com or
send us an email to info@ejournalplus.com

We will contact you soon

  1. Home
  2. Articles in Press
  3. Authors

Current Issue

By Issue

By Subject

Keyword Index

Author Index

Indexing Databases XML

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Editorial Staff

Facts and Figures

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

News

Detection of Cryptosporidium parvum in calf feces using microscopical, serological, and molecular methods

    Wael IM Felefel Ahmed Abdel-Rady Ibrahim Abd El-Rahim Mohamed Morsi Elkamshishi Walaa Mostafa

Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Sciences, In Press
10.33899/ijvs.2022.134661.2390

  • Show Article
  • Highlights
  • Full Text
  • References
  • Download
  • Cite
  • Statistics
  • Share

Abstract

Cryptosporidiosis is a critical gastrointestinal disease in calves. This study examined 150 fecal samples of diarrheic calves collected from the eastern region of Saudi Arabia for detection of Cryptosporidium parvumusing the Modified Ziehl-Neelsen (MZN) method, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), and conventional Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). The performance of these methods was assessed using diagnostic accuracy tests. The present study identified C. parvum oocysts in fecal samples by modified Ziehl-Neelsen 40/150; 26.66%, ELIZA 60/150; 40%, and PCR 78/150; 52% methods, respectively. The microscopic method revealed higher specificity 65.27% than the ELIZA 51.38%, while the ELIZA showed higher sensitivity 32.05% than MZN method 19.23%. However, MZN and ELIZA methods were unsatisfactory diagnostic tools compared with the PCR as the area under the curve values in Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) analysis were less than 0.6. Furthermore, using the kappa analysis test revealed no agreement between MZN and ELISA methods compared with PCR at P<0.05.
Keywords:
    Diarrheic Staining Saudi Techniques
Main Subjects:
  • Veterinary Protozoa

Introduction

 

The Cryptosporidium parasite is a vital protozoan parasite, and over 150 species of mammals have been identified as hosts of nearly 20 genotypes of C. parvum and also considered a worldwide problem in humans and animals (1,2). The parasite is considered a significant cause of neonatal profuse watery diarrhea due to its life cycle of C. parvum is done in the epithelial cells in gut canal (3). Infection by C. parvum results in intercellular colonization of the extra-cytoplasmic microvillus of the small intestine (4) and leads to production losses and a high mortality rate in pre-weaning calves during the first 28 days of life (5). Cryptosporidium parvum is easily transmitted to humans, especially immune-compromised individuals, and is therefore considered an anthroponotic zoonotic disease (6(. Different methods were used in the diagnosis of apicomplexan protozoal infection included cryptosporidiosis. A direct microscopic method is obtained using morphological identification with a 100× oil immersion lens. It uses different staining techniques such as hot or cold modified Ziehl-Neelsen (MZN) and auramine phenol to detect the oocyst containing four mature sporozoites (7). The microscopical method is an excellent tool and highly economical but requires expertise and experienced diagnostic personnel to reduce false-positive results and thus can be time-consuming and also parasites species and multiple infections the microscopic examination cannot detected these issues (8,9). Indirect serological methods, like latex agglutination test (LAT), modified agglutination test (MAT), ELISA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay which, depend on coproantigen detection. Coproantigen detection assays are rapid and useful for screening large numbers of specimens simultaneously but do not provide details concerning the species of apicomplexan protozoal included Cryptosporidium detected (10,11). Molecular methods, e. g. conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR), are used to detect parasite DNA but needed amplification before PCR test to overcome eliminate or inactivation inhibitors (12,13). PCR is a sensitive method compared to microscopical and serological diagnosis in humans and animals for detecting Cryptosporidium and is used to differentiate the species of helminthes but incurs a high cost in developing counties (14). The main advantage of the PCR method is detecting various Cryptosporidium species at the species, genotype, and subtype levels. Therefore, choosing the most effective diagnostic technique relies on multiple factors, including accessible resources, trained personnel, available time, and the number of specimens tested. Each technique also has different levels of specificity and sensitivity (15).

In Saudi Arabia, no studies guide the diagnosis of Cryptosporidium species in calves. Therefore, this study aimed to detect C. parvum using microscopic (hot MZN staining), ELISA, and PCR methods and subsequently estimate the diagnostic accuracy of each method.

 

Materials and methods

 

Ethical approve

The study is not an animal experiment, but a diagnostic study, using common sampling methods for diagnostic purposes. The methods were performed in accordance with the guidelines of ethical committee of ministry of environment, water, and agriculture, KSA, the authors confirm the study was carried out in compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines. Also All respective animal protocols were reviewed by state ethics commission and have been approved by competent authority (Ethical committee of Alexandria university, Egypt, serial number (0305796) at 20-10-2022, FWA No: 00018699 and IRB No: 00012098). Write the name of scientific or institutional board that give the ethical approve to conduct this scientific work and give the approval issue number and date.

 

Sample collection

One hundred fifty fecal samples from different private farms were collected from calves (> 3 months old). All 150 calves were clinically examined for body temperature, mucus membranes, and degree of dehydration. The calves were suffering from profuse watery diarrhea. Fecal samples were collected from profuse watery diarrheic calves. Each sample was divided into two parts: one part was preserved in 10% formalin prepared via the formol ether concentration technique for later staining with the hot MZN method (16). The second part was preserved in laboratory tubes at −20°C for further investigation.

 

Hot MZN staining

The reagents needed to perform hot MZN staining were Carbol-Fuchsin (10 gm basic fuchsin, 100ml absolute ethanol, 50 gm carbol, and one-liter distilled water), sulfuric acid-ethanol solution (3ml concentrated sulfuric acid and 100 ml methanol 95%) was put in a glass stopper. (sulfuric1%) Moreover, methylene blue (100ml glycerol, 1ml 3%aqueous Mb, 100ml distilled water). Furthermore, the procedure of hot MZN staining was done through three steps: carbol fuchsin, decolorization, and counter-stain. Respectively in between each step rinsed, the slides with tap water were drained and air drying, so the practical procedures were done as follows; the first step was a thin fecal smear was made from the sediment of the centrifuged formalized specimen and was allowed to air dry, then the slide was placed on a staining rack and flooded with carbol fuchsin for five minutes. The slide was heated gently with a Bunsen burner. Then the slide was rinsed with tap water. The second step was decolorization with 1% sulfuric acid ethanol solution for about 2 minutes, then rinsing with tap water, draining, and air drying. The final third step was the slide was flooded with methylene blue (counter stain) for one minute, and then rinsed with tap water; draining and air drying was done. The smear was examined microscopically using a high-power magnification to detect oocysts and oil immersion objective to identify them as Cryptosporidium oocyst retained a red/pink color due to Cryptosporidium was acid-fast versus blue or clear background(17).

 

ELISA method

The method was performed using a multiscreen Antigen ELISA kit for antigenic detection of Cryptosporidium in feces (Bio-X Diagnostics S.A., Belgium) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The microtitration plate was coated with specific antibodies. Fecal samples were diluted and incubated in the coated wells. After 1 h incubation at 21°C +/- 3°C, tetramethylbenzidine was added, and the absorbance was read at 450 nm using a microplate ELISA reader (Thermo Scientific, USA) (18).

 

Conventional PCR method

Specific primers for C. parvum were as follows: forward primer 5`-GCCCACCTGGATATACACTTTC-3`; reverse primer 5`-TCCCCCTCTCTAGTACCAACAGGA-3`. Amplified DNA was separated using agarose gel electrophoresis and was visualized using a U.V. transilluminator (320 nm) (19).

 

Isolation of C. parvum DNA from fecal samples:

Fecal specimens were collected from the rectum of all selected animals and were prepared according to Johnson et al. Fecal samples stored in 2.5% potassium dichromate were washed several times (4 times) with PCR buffer (10 mM Tris, 50 mM K Cl, 3.5 mM Mg Cl2) by centrifugation. A 20% Chelex 100 (Bio-Rad Lab., Calif.) was mixed with fecal samples (20 µl of chelex stock to 100µl of samples). Then, samples were subjected to six cycles of freezing and thawing to release the DNA from oocysts using a dry ice ethanol bath for freezing and a water bath (98 oC) for thawing with incubation time from 1 to 2 minutes in each bath. In the next step, samples were centrifuged, and 50 µl of supernatant was used as the template in the PCR assay (20).

 

DNA amplification

The primer set described by Laberge et al. was used in PCR which is specific for Cryptosporidium parvum. Sequences of primers were as follows: forward - 5'GCC CAC CTG GAT ATA CAC TTT C3`; reverse - 5'TCC CCC TCT CTA GTA CCA ACA GGA 3`. The size of the amplified product was 358 bp. (Figure 1) The PCR mixture contained PCR reaction buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl, 1.5 mM MgCl, 50 mM KCl, pH 8.3) and contained 1.0 mM each of forward and reverse primers, 0.2 mM each dATP, dGTP, dCTP and dTTP, 100 mg/ml BSA and 2.5 U Taq DNA polymerase (Boehringer Mannheim Canada, Laval, Que´bec, Canada). 10 µl of template DNA was added in the case of fecal samples and 30 µl in the case of filtered environmental water pellet suspensions. Reaction mixtures were initially denaturated at 94ºC for 1 min and then subjected to 40 cycles of denaturation at 94 oC for 15 s, annealing at 50oC for 1 min, and extension at 72ºC for 1 min, with an additional 7-min extension at 72 oC (21).

 

 

 

Figure 1: Sensitivity of the PCR assay for detecting Cryptosporidium parvum as determined by 2 % agarose gel electrophoresis. M: 100 bp ladder, 358 PB positive samples lines 1-9, line 10 negative.

 

Statistical analysis

Data in a Microsoft Excel® (Microsoft® office 2013) spreadsheet were recorded and analyzed using SPSS (version 22, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). The Kappa test (cross-tabulation) measured the agreement values between microscopic and ELISA methods and PCR. Diagnostic accuracy of any diagnostic procedure or a test gives discriminates between certain two conditions of interest (healthy or negative and disease or positive cases). This discriminative ability can be quantified by the measures of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), likelihood ratio, diagnostic efficiency%, and discrimination ability. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve values were calculated using the area under the curve (AUC) as a diagnostic accuracy test to validate the prediction of cryptosporidiosis; a level of 95% was considered statistically significant.

 

Results

 

The current study reported infection rate percentages based on the hot MZN staining method, ELISA, and conventional PCR at 26.66%, 40%, and 52%, respectively. In this study, the ELISA technique diagnosed more positive samples (25 true positive samples) than those found via microscopic examination (15 true positive samples) (Tables 1 and 2); however, microscopic examination diagnosed more negative samples (47 true negative samples) more than the ELISA technique did (37 true negative samples). Analysis of the two screening techniques was performed via kappa testing. This revealed no agreement between screening tests and PCR, with a kappa value of -0.152 for the hot MZN staining method and -0.164 for ELISA, although there was a significant difference between the screening test results and that for PCR (Table 3). AUC values of 0.577 and 0.5833 (Table 4) were obtained for the microscopy and ELISA, respectively (Figure 2). These values of less than 0.6 indicated that both screening techniques were unsatisfactory diagnostic tests compared with the gold standard PCR technique.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Correlation of Ziehl-Nielsen staining results and conventional PCR results for detection of C. parvum from fecal samples investigated in the present study

 

Detection method

Conventional PCR method

Nr. of positive (%)

Nr. of negative (%)

Total

MZN

Nr. of positive

15 (37.5)

25 (62.5)

40

Nr. of negative

63 (57.3)

47 (42.7)

110

Total

78 (52.0)

72 (48.0)

150

 

Table 2: Correlation of ELISA results and conventional PCR results for detecting C. parvum from calf fecal samples

 

Detection method

Conventional PCR method

Nr. of positive (%)

Nr. of negative (%)

Total

ELISA

Nr. of positive

25 (41.7)

35 (58.3)

40

Nr. of negative

53 (58.9)

37 (41.1)

90

Total

78 (52.0)

72 (48.0)

150

 

Table 3: Measure of the agreement by kappa test between both screening techniques compared with conventional PCR as the gold standard for C. parvum diagnosis in calf fecal matter

 

Detection methods

Value

Asymp. Std. Errora

Approx. Tb

Approx. Sig.

MZN

-.152-

0.071

-2.144-

0.032

ELISA

-.164-

0.079

-2.068-

0.039

 

Table 4: Diagnostic performance of the microscopic examination of hot Ziehl-Nelsen stain and ELISA as diagnostic screening techniques for C. parvum diagnosis compared to the conventional PCR as the gold standard in the fecal matter among calf

 

Diagnostic accuracy test

Screening tests

Hot MZN

ELISA

Diagnostic efficiency %

41.33

41.33

Sensitivity % (95%Cl)

19.23 (11.50-30.04)

32.05 (22.18-43.70)

Specificity % (95%Cl)

65.27 (53.05-75.85)

51.38 (39.40-63.22)

PPV % (95%Cl)

37.50 (23.17-54.19)

41.66 (29.31-55.08)

NPV % (95%Cl)

42.72 (33.45-52.51)

41.11 (31.00-51.98)

PLR (95%Cl)

0.55 (0.31-0.96)

0.65 (0.44-0.98)

NLR (95%Cl)

1.23 (1.09-1.39)

1.32 (1.10-1.58)

DA %

19.78

17.23

AUC

0.577 (0.486-0.669)

0.583 (0.491-0.674)

PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; PLR, likelihood ratio for positive results; NPL, likelihood ratio for negative results; DA, discrimination ability (PPV+ NPV-100)100%; AUC area under the curve.

 

 

 

Figure 2: ROC curve for predicting the effectiveness of ELISA or microscopic staining as diagnostic tools by using PCR as a gold standard

 

Discussion

 

The incidence rate of C. parvum infection is 100% in neonatal calves with diarrhea has been previously reported by Avendaño (22). Similar results have also been reported among diarrheal dairy calves in France by Mammeri et al. (23). Elsafi and Rashmi (24,25), revealed that; false negatives reported in the ELISA test (as compared with gold standard PCR results) have been attributed to different reasons: first, the sensitivity of the test may be low because of the antigenic variability of the Cryptosporidium isolates; and second, the variable density of the parasite, where low parasite densities could be due to late infections In this study, the percentage of positive samples detected by ELISA was higher than those detected via the MZN staining method, and these results agree with several other studies that have reported that ELISA-based methods are more sensitive than microscopy methods by Chalmers (26). Furthermore, Ezzaty et al. (27) found that; the infection rate of Cryptosporidium oocysts in cattle fecal samples via PCR was 35% higher than that determined using ELISA 18.7%. Conversely, several studies by Khurana et al (28) have indicated that ELISA was less sensitive than the microscopic examination method. Here, the sensitivity of the hot MZN staining method 19.23% was significantly lower than that of ELISA 32.5%. This result agrees with Elgun et al (29), who reported a lower sensitivity for the MZN staining method than other techniques, including immunofluorescence assays.

Furthermore, Sumeeta et al reported a higher sensitivity for ELISA (95.35%) than found for the MZN stain method 79.06% and also reported 100% specificity for both the MZN method and ELISA.ELISA is a simple and easy method and can be rapidly performed for many samples; furthermore, the ELISA method does not require as much diagnostic and technical skill as the microscopy method (30). The specificity of the hot MZN staining method 65.27% was higher than that for ELISA (51.38%), which is in agreement with other studies that reported that MZN staining was more specific 98.9-100% with lower sensitivity by Tuli (31). However, the current study regarding the agreement between screening tests and PCR is inconsistent with that determined by Ghaffari and Kalantari, who reported a moderate agreement between PCR and ELISA (kappa = 0.55) and poor agreement between microscopic examination and PCR and the used of hot MZN staining to identify Cryptosporidium oocysts in 10.80% of samples versus a much higher PCR-determined infection rate of 66.4% in the same calf fecal samples (32). Furthermore, Goñi et al demonstrated a good agreement between microscopy and PCR. Regarding the diagnostic accuracy test, the current finding agrees with a study by Kar et al, However, developing countries may be less able to perform PCR assays because of the limited resources (33). Therefore, the ELISA method is recommended instead, as this demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity (34).

Bhat et al. reported that PCR detected significantly more Cryptosporidium infection than that found via microscopic examination. The cryptosporidium infection rate in calves using PCR was twice as much as those inferred by the direct fecal smear used in the hot MZN staining method and which requires highly experienced diagnostic expert personnel to reduce the misdiagnosis due to artifacts or other intestinal apicomplexan parasites (35). Similarly, Clarke and McIntyre reported that false-positive samples were detected by microscopy because of the presence of artifacts, such as yeasts and debris in the stool; however, false-negative samples were also found to be due to poor uptake of stain by the oocytes (36). Furthermore, by Alseady revealed that; the overall prevalence of infection with Cryptosporidium is 21% (21/100) by conventional microscopic (modified Ziehl-Neelsen staining) method on the other hand, PCR diagnostic technique the Cryptosporidium infection is detected in 38 samples 38% with sensitivity 100% which the differences of infection attributed to multiple factors included management systems and rearing methods, non modified risk factors likes' age, environmental conditions and breed of cattle and modified risk factors as, the sampling techniques and diagnostic methods (37). The most common species of Cryptosporidiosis are C. parvum in rural area then C. hominis in urban area and the lowest is C. ryana and C. bovis and also there are fact that C. parvum is not specific to a host (38). There are subtype family is widespread of Cryptosporidiosis that cause infection among both human and animal, and C. hominis in animal, conceivably a source of human infection with same species (39). Furthermore, there are three subtypes of C. parvum IbA21G2, IbA19G2 and IbA13G3 but the second subtypes were recorded in Iraq previously (39). So, the calves its age less than six weeks during pre-weaning the C. parvum is the key enteropathogens of neonatal calf led to diarrhea (40). In Kuwait the molecular identification of C. parvum is 62.8% in pre-weaned calves (41).

 

Conclusion

 

We found that microscopy and ELISA were unsatisfactory diagnostic tests compared with PCR. Microscopy is an affordable technique but has lower sensitivity in diagnosing the positive samples alone and, therefore, should be accompanied by ELISA or PCR to obtain an accurate diagnosis of Cryptosporidium infection based on fecal samples. We found that PCR was the most accurate and sensitive diagnostic tool for Cryptosporidium infection, especially in samples of low fecal matter density.

 

Acknowledgments

 

The authors would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research at Umm Al-Qura University for supporting this work by Grant Code: (23UQU4320609DSR01).

 

Conflict of interest

 

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this manuscript.

  1. Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in 40 calve samples 26.66% by hot MZN staining.
  2. Microscopic examination had higher specificity 65.27%.
  3. ELISA analysis had a higher sensitivity 32.05% than that of hot MZN staining 19.23%.
  4. both hot MZN staining and ELISA methods were unsatisfactory diagnostic tests compared with the gold standard technique of PCR.
  • PDF
  • XML
(2023). Detection of Cryptosporidium parvum in calf feces using microscopical, serological, and molecular methods. Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Sciences, (), -. doi: 10.33899/ijvs.2022.134661.2390
Wael IM Felefel; Ahmed Abdel-Rady; Ibrahim Abd El-Rahim; Mohamed Morsi Elkamshishi; Walaa Mostafa. "Detection of Cryptosporidium parvum in calf feces using microscopical, serological, and molecular methods". Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Sciences, , , 2023, -. doi: 10.33899/ijvs.2022.134661.2390
(2023). 'Detection of Cryptosporidium parvum in calf feces using microscopical, serological, and molecular methods', Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Sciences, (), pp. -. doi: 10.33899/ijvs.2022.134661.2390
Detection of Cryptosporidium parvum in calf feces using microscopical, serological, and molecular methods. Iraqi Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 2023; (): -. doi: 10.33899/ijvs.2022.134661.2390
  • RIS
  • EndNote
  • BibTeX
  • APA
  • MLA
  • Harvard
  • Vancouver

  1. Firoozi Z, Sazmand A, Zahedi A, Astani A, Fattahi-Bafghi A, Kiani-Salmi N, Ebrahimi B, Dehghani-Tafti A, Ryan U, Akrami-Mohajeri F. Prevalence and genotyping identification of Cryptosporidium in adult ruminants in central Iran. Parasites Vectors. 2019;12(1):510. DOI: 10.1186/s13071-019-3759-2
  2. Al-Musawi AK, Awad AH, Alkhaled MJ. Molecular analysis of Cryptosporidium species in domestic goat in central Iraq. Iraqi J Vet Sci. 2022;36(4):1041-1045. DOI: 10.33899/ijvs.2022.132974.2155
  3. Jarad NI. Molecular detection of Cryptosporidium parvum in chicken in Al-Diwaniya province. Iraqi J Vet Sci. 2020;34(2):441-445. DOI: 10.33899/ijvs.2019.126159.1249
  4. Robertson LJ, Johansen ØH, Kifleyohannes T, Efunshile AM, Terefe G. Cryptosporidium infections in Africa how important is a zoonotic transmission? A review of the evidence. Front Vet Sci. 2020 7:575881. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2020.575881
  5. Falkenberg U, Kromker V, Konow M, Flor J, Sanftleben P, Losand B. Management of calves in commercial dairy farms in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany and its impact on calf mortality and prevalence of rotavirus and Cryptosporidium parvum infections in pre-weaned calves. Vet Anim Sci. 2022;16:100243. DOI: 10.1016/j.vas.2022.100243
  6. Pumipuntu N, Piratae S. Cryptosporidiosis: Azoonotic disease concern, Vet World. 2018;11(5):681-686. DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2018.681-686
  7. Omolabi KF, Odeniran PO, Soliman ME. A meta-analysis of Cryptosporidium species in humans from southern Africa (2000-2020). J Parasit Dis. 2022;46(1):304-316. DOI: 10.1007/s12639-021-01436-4
  8. Paulos S, Saugar JM, de LA, Fuentes I, Mateo M, Carmena D. Comparative performance evaluation of four commercial multiplex real-time PCR assays for the detection of the diarrhea-causing protozoa Cryptosporidium hominis/parvum, Giardia duodenalis, and Entamoeba histolytica. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):215068. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215068
  9. Mahmood MS, Alobaidii WA. Molecular detection of Trypanosoma species in sheep and goats in Mosul city. Iraqi J Vet Sci. 2022;36(2):445-449. DOI: 10.33899/ijvs.2021.130488.1835
  10. Razakandrainibe R, Mérat C, Kapel N, Sautour M, Guyot K, Gargala G, Ballet JJ, LePape P, Dalle F, Favennec L. Multicenter evaluation of an ELISA for the detection of Cryptosporidium spp, antigen in clinical human stool samples. Microorganisms. 2021;9:209. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms9020209
  11. Aghwan SS, Albakri HS, Albaqqal SM. Comparison the efficiency of different techniques for the diagnosis of Toxoplasma gondii infection in slaughtered ewes. Iraqi J Vet Sci. 2021;35(I):19-23. DOI: 10.33899/ijvs.2021.127058.1452
  12. Wang Y, Zhang B, Li J, Yu S, Zhang N, Liu S, Zhang Y, Li J, Ma N, Cai Y, Zhao Q. Development of a quantitative real-time PCR assay for detection of Cryptosporidium spp. infection and threatening caused by Cryptosporidium parvum subtype IIdA19G1 in diarrhea calves from northeastern China. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2019;21(3):179-90. DOI: 10.1089/vbz.2020.2674
  13. Neamah AA, Fahed KH, Sadeq JN, Alfatlawi MA. Molecular characterization and phylogenetic analysis of Escherichia coli isolated from milk of cattle affected by mastitis. Iraqi J Vet Sci. 2022;36(1):251-254. DOI: 10.33899/ijvs.2021.129934.1702
  14. Suleiman EG, Alhayali NS, Al-Taee AF. Morphometric and molecular characterization of Moniezia species in sheep in Mosul city, Iraq. Iraqi J Vet Sci. 2022;36(3):833-837. DOI: 10.33899/ijvs.2022.132278.2077
  15. Mergen K, Espina N, Teal A, Madison AS. Detecting Cryptosporidium in stool samples submitted to a reference laboratory. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020;103(1):421-427. DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.19-0792
  16. Lamido TZ, Yaqub Y, Yahaya SU, Giwa FJ, Olayinka A. Comparison of modified Ziehl Neelsen staining technique with antigen detection using ELISA in the diagnosis of Cryptosporidiosis at a tertiary hospital in north-western Nigeria. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2022;16(9):296-300. [available at]
  17. Shams S, Khan S, Khan A, Khan I, Ijaz M, Ullah A. Differential techniques used for detection of Cryptosporidium oocysts in stool specimens. J Parasit Dis. 2016;1(1):1-12. [available at]
  18. Eassa S, Flefel W, El-Masry S, Abdul FA. Evaluation of different diagnostic approaches for detection of Cryptosporidium in stools of diarrheic children. J High Inst Public Health. 2017;47(1):29-38. DOI: 10.21608/jhiph.2017.19975
  19. Kadri K. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), principle and applications. In: Nagpal, ML, Boldura O, Baltă C, Enany S, editors. Synthetic biology-new interdisciplinary science. London: Intech Open; 2019. 2-5 p.
  20. Johnson DW, Pieniazek NJ, Griffin DW, Misener L, Rose JB. Development of a PCR protocol for sensitive detection of Cryptosporidium oocysts in water samples. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995;61(11):3849-55. DOI: 10.1128/aem.61.11.3849-3855.1995
  21. Laberge I, Ibrahim A, Barta JR, Griffiths MW. Detection of Cryptosporidium parvum in raw milk by PCR and oligonucleotide probe hybridization. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996;62(9):3259-64. DOI: 10.1128/aem.62.9.3259-3264.1996
  22. Avendaño C, Ramo A, Vergara CC, Sánchez AC, Quílez J. Genetic uniqueness of Cryptosporidium parvum from dairy calves in Colombia. Parasitol Res. 2018;117:1317-1323. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-018-5818-6
  23. Mammeri M, Chevillot A, Chenafi I, Thomas M, Julien C, Vallée I, Polack B, Follet J, Adjou KT. Molecular characterization of Cryptosporidium isolates from diarrheal dairy calves in France. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Rep. 2019;18:100323. DOI: 10.1016/j.vprsr.2019.100323
  24. Elsafi SH, Al-Maqati TN, Hussein MI, Ahmed AH, Zahrani M, Eidan MS. Comparison of microscopy, rapid immunoassay, and molecular techniques for the detection of Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium parvum. Parasitol Res. 2013;112(4):1641-1646. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-013-3319-1
  25. Rashmi KS, Ravi KK. Intestinal cryptosporidiosis and the profile of the CD4 counts in a cohort of HIV-infected patients. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(6):1016. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2013/5339.3062
  26. Chalmers RM, Campbell BM, Crouch N, Charlett A, Davies AP. Comparison of diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of seven Cryptosporidium assays used in the UK. J Med Microbiol. 2011;60:1598-1604. DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.034181-0
  27. Ezzaty M, Zintl A, Grant T, Lucy F, Mulcahy G, De WT. Comparison of diagnostic techniques for the detection of Cryptosporidium oocysts in animal samples. Exp Parasitol. 2015;152:14-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.exppara.2015.01.018
  28. Khurana S, Sharma P, Sharma A, Malla N. Evaluation of Ziehl-Neelsen staining, auramine phenol staining, antigen detection enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and polymerase chain reaction, for the diagnosis of intestinal cryptosporidiosis. Trop Parasitol. 2012;2(1):20. DOI: 10.4103/2229-5070.97234
  29. Elgun G, Koltas IS. Investigation of Cryptosporidium spp. antigen by ELISA method in stool specimens obtained from patients with diarrhea. Parasitol Res. 2011;108:395-397. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-010-2079-4
  30. Johansen OH, Abdissa A, Zangenberg M, Mekonnen Z, Eshetu B, Bjørang O. Performance and operational feasibility of two diagnostic tests for cryptosporidiosis in children (CRYPTO-POC): a clinical, prospective, diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021;21(5):722-30. DOI: 10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30556-9
  31. Tuli L, Singh DK, Gulati AK, Sundar S, Tribhuban MM. A multiattribute utility evaluation of different methods for the detection of enteric protozoa causing diarrhea in AIDS patients. BMC microbiol. 2010;10(1):1-7. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2180-10-11
  32. Ghaffari S, Kalantari N. Recognition of Cryptosporidium oocysts in fresh and old stool samples comparison of four techniques. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2014;4:570-574. DOI: 10.12980/APJTB.4.2014APJTB-2014-0067
  33. Goñi P, Martín B, Villacampa M. Evaluation of an immunochromatographic dip strip test for simultaneous detection of Cryptosporidium spp, Giardia duodenalis, and Entamoeba histolytica antigens in human fecal samples. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012;31:2077-2082. DOI: 10.1007/s10096-012-1544-7
  34. Kar S, Gawlowska S, Daugschies A, Bangoura B. Quantitative comparison of different purification and detection methods for Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts. Vet Parasitol. 2011;177:366-370. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.12.005
  35. Bhat SA, Dixit M, Juyal PD, Singh NK. Comparison of nested PCR and microscopy for the detection of cryptosporidiosis in bovine calves. J Parasit Dis. 2014;38(1):101-105. DOI: 10.1007/s12639-012-0201-5
  36. Clarke SC, McIntyre M. Acid-fast bodies in fecal smears stained by the modified Ziehl-Neelsen technique. Br J Biomed Sci. 2001;58:7-10. [available at]
  37. Alseady HH, Kawan MH. Prevalence and molecular identification of Cryptosporidium spp in cattle in Baghdad province, Iraq. Iraqi J Vet Sci. 2019;33(2):389-394. DOI: 10.33899/ijvs.2019.163084 
  38. Alkhaled MA, Hamad WA. Molecular characterization of Cryptosporidium spp in sheep and goat in Al-Qadisiyah province, Iraq. Iraqi J Vet Sci. 2017;41(2):31-37. DOI: 10.30539/iraqijvm.v41i2.44
  39. Razakandrainibe R, Diawara E, Costa D, Le GL, Lemeteil D, Ballet JJ, Gargala G, Favennec L. Common occurrence of Cryptosporidium hominis in asymptomatic and symptomatic calves in France. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(3):6355. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006355
  40. Thomson S, Innes E, Jonsson N, Katzer F. Shedding of Cryptosporidium in calves and dams evidence of re-infection and shedding of different gp60 subtypes. Parasitol. 2019;146:1404-1413. DOI: 10.1017/S0031182019000829
  41. Majeed AH, AlAzemi MS, Al-Sayegh MT, Abdou MI. Epidemiological and molecular study of Cryptosporidium in preweaned calves in Kuwait. Anim. 2022;12:1805. DOI: 10.3390/ani12141805

  • Article View: 80
  • PDF Download: 0
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Telegram
  • Home
  • Glossary
  • News
  • Aims and Scope
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sitemap

 

© 2023, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Mosul

 
Powered by eJournalPlus