Cattle gastrointestinal nematode egg-spiked faecal samples: high recovery rates using the Mini-FLOTAC technique.


Journal

Parasites & vectors
ISSN: 1756-3305
Titre abrégé: Parasit Vectors
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101462774

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 May 2020
Historique:
received: 16 01 2020
accepted: 27 04 2020
entrez: 8 5 2020
pubmed: 8 5 2020
medline: 7 1 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Faecal egg count (FEC) techniques are commonly used to detect gastrointestinal nematodes (GINs) in cattle and to determine anthelmintic efficacy/resistance through the faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT). Mini-FLOTAC is one of the techniques recommended for a standardised FEC/FECRT of helminth eggs in cattle. However, only one paper evaluated the recovery rate of GIN eggs by Mini-FLOTAC (compared to McMaster and modified-Wisconsin method) in cattle, using only a level of contamination of 200 eggs per gram (EPG) of faeces and using GIN eggs collected from goat faeces to spike faecal samples from cattle. To further study the recovery rate of GIN eggs from cattle faeces, this study was conducted in two laboratories, one in Belgium and one in Italy to evaluate the sensitivity, accuracy, precision and reproducibility of the Mini-FLOTAC and McMaster techniques (at two reading levels: grids and chambers) for the detection of GIN eggs in spiked bovine faecal samples. In both countries, spiked cattle faecal samples with five different levels of egg contamination (10, 50, 100, 200 and 500 EPG) of GINs were used. The study was performed in both laboratories by the same expert operator and using the same standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the Mini-FLOTAC and McMaster techniques. Sensitivity, accuracy and precision were calculated for each technique and for each level of contamination. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate differences in performance between the two techniques. Mini-FLOTAC had a higher sensitivity (100% at all EPG levels for Mini-FLOTAC vs 0-66.6% for McMaster chambers and grids at levels< 100 EPG), a higher accuracy (98.1% mean value for Mini-FLOTAC vs 83.2% for McMaster grids and 63.8% for McMaster chambers) and a lower coefficient of variation (10.0% for Mini-FLOTAC vs 47.5% for McMaster grids and 69.4% for McMaster chambers) than McMaster. There was no significant difference in the recovery of GIN eggs between the two studies performed in Belgium and in Italy. The high GIN egg recovery rate detected by Mini-FLOTAC and the similar results obtained in Belgium and in Italy indicated that the diagnostic performance of a FEC technique was not dependent on the laboratory environment.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Faecal egg count (FEC) techniques are commonly used to detect gastrointestinal nematodes (GINs) in cattle and to determine anthelmintic efficacy/resistance through the faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT). Mini-FLOTAC is one of the techniques recommended for a standardised FEC/FECRT of helminth eggs in cattle. However, only one paper evaluated the recovery rate of GIN eggs by Mini-FLOTAC (compared to McMaster and modified-Wisconsin method) in cattle, using only a level of contamination of 200 eggs per gram (EPG) of faeces and using GIN eggs collected from goat faeces to spike faecal samples from cattle. To further study the recovery rate of GIN eggs from cattle faeces, this study was conducted in two laboratories, one in Belgium and one in Italy to evaluate the sensitivity, accuracy, precision and reproducibility of the Mini-FLOTAC and McMaster techniques (at two reading levels: grids and chambers) for the detection of GIN eggs in spiked bovine faecal samples.
METHODS METHODS
In both countries, spiked cattle faecal samples with five different levels of egg contamination (10, 50, 100, 200 and 500 EPG) of GINs were used. The study was performed in both laboratories by the same expert operator and using the same standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the Mini-FLOTAC and McMaster techniques. Sensitivity, accuracy and precision were calculated for each technique and for each level of contamination. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate differences in performance between the two techniques.
RESULTS RESULTS
Mini-FLOTAC had a higher sensitivity (100% at all EPG levels for Mini-FLOTAC vs 0-66.6% for McMaster chambers and grids at levels< 100 EPG), a higher accuracy (98.1% mean value for Mini-FLOTAC vs 83.2% for McMaster grids and 63.8% for McMaster chambers) and a lower coefficient of variation (10.0% for Mini-FLOTAC vs 47.5% for McMaster grids and 69.4% for McMaster chambers) than McMaster. There was no significant difference in the recovery of GIN eggs between the two studies performed in Belgium and in Italy.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The high GIN egg recovery rate detected by Mini-FLOTAC and the similar results obtained in Belgium and in Italy indicated that the diagnostic performance of a FEC technique was not dependent on the laboratory environment.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32375871
doi: 10.1186/s13071-020-04107-0
pii: 10.1186/s13071-020-04107-0
pmc: PMC7204292
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

230

Références

Vet Parasitol. 2012 Sep 10;188(3-4):397-401
pubmed: 22521975
Parasitology. 2018 Nov;145(13):1655-1664
pubmed: 29415781
Vet Parasitol. 2003 Aug 14;115(4):311-20
pubmed: 12944044
BMC Vet Res. 2018 Jan 5;14(1):7
pubmed: 29304858
Vet Parasitol. 2015 Jan 30;207(3-4):342-5
pubmed: 25579397
Trends Parasitol. 2011 Apr;27(4):176-81
pubmed: 21168366
Vet Rec. 2015 May 23;176(21):546
pubmed: 25762583
Vet Parasitol. 2017 Jun 15;240:24-29
pubmed: 28576340
Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Reports. 2017 Dec;10:132-135
pubmed: 31014585
Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2015 Aug 18;5(3):163-71
pubmed: 26448902
Vet Parasitol. 2018 Jun 15;257:21-27
pubmed: 29907188
Nat Protoc. 2010 Mar;5(3):503-15
pubmed: 20203667
Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2013 Mar 13;80(1):539
pubmed: 23718204
Int J Parasitol. 2016 Jul;46(8):485-93
pubmed: 27025771
Parasit Vectors. 2019 Jul 16;12(1):353
pubmed: 31311591
Parasitol Res. 2011 Sep;109(3):953-7
pubmed: 21472403
Vet Parasitol. 2018 Sep 15;261:91-95
pubmed: 30253857
Nat Protoc. 2017 Sep;12(9):1723-1732
pubmed: 28771238
Vet Parasitol. 2004 Aug 13;123(1-2):121-31
pubmed: 15265576
Vet Parasitol. 2016 Jul 30;225:53-60
pubmed: 27369575
Vet Parasitol. 2014 Sep 15;205(1-2):216-23
pubmed: 25002307
Vet Parasitol. 2009 Sep 16;164(1):70-9
pubmed: 19414223
Vet Parasitol. 2017 Nov 30;247:85-92
pubmed: 29080771
Vet Parasitol. 2011 Dec 29;183(1-2):87-94
pubmed: 21802853
Int J Parasitol. 2019 Oct;49(11):885-892
pubmed: 31545964
Vet Parasitol. 2019 Aug;272:53-57
pubmed: 31395205

Auteurs

Alessandra Amadesi (A)

Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, Naples, Italy. alessandra.amadesi@unina.it.

Antonio Bosco (A)

Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, Naples, Italy.

Laura Rinaldi (L)

Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, Naples, Italy.

Giuseppe Cringoli (G)

Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, Naples, Italy.

Edwin Claerebout (E)

Department of Virology, Parasitology and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Maria Paola Maurelli (MP)

Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, Naples, Italy.

Articles similaires

Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice
Animals Tail Swine Behavior, Animal Animal Husbandry

Classifications MeSH