The Prevalence of Endoparasites in Slovakian Household Dogs and Cats

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-280776/v1

PDF

Research Article

The Prevalence of Endoparasites in Slovakian Household Dogs and Cats

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-280776/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Pets play a pivotal role as definitive or reservoir hosts for many zoonotic parasites. Dogs and cats without any clinical signs may be a carrier for the infection. In a one-year-study, collected fecal samples of 257 dogs and 50 cats were examined coproscopically for the endoparasite infections. Out of 307 investigated fecal samples 107 (34.9%) were positive for the presence of the propagative stages of endoparasites. In 257 of dogs fecal samples, 12 different species of endoparasites were detected: Giardia spp., Cystoisopsora spp., Sarcocystis spp., Hammondia/Neospora-like, Angiostrongylus vasorum, Capillaria aerophila, Crenosoma vulpis, Toxocara canis, Toxascaris leonina, Trichuris vulpis, Strongyloides stercoralis and eggs from the family Ancylostomatidae. Only 4 different parasitic species were found in 50 domestic cats’ fecal samples - Giardia spp., Cystoisopsora spp., T. cati and larvae of Aelurostrongylus abstrusus. It was confirmed that a significant differences were found in relation to age for Giardia spp., T. canis, S. stercoralis and family Ancylostomatidae. Close and frequent contact between younger pets and people increases the risks for the transmission of zoonotic diseases.

Large Animal Medicine

Small Animal Medicine

dog

cat

household

endoparasites

zoonotic species

Slovakia

Intestinal parasites are important enteropathogens in dogs and cats. Moreover, several canine/feline intestinal parasites are considered zoonotic and are of great consequence to the public health (Claerebout et al., 2009). Pets play a pivotal role as definitive or reservoir hosts for many zoonotic parasites, especially in low-income countries and also in socio-economically disadvantaged communities (Traub et al., 2002; Traub et al., 2005; Salb et al., 2008). The period of our time is globalization which increases the likelihood of large-scale and intensive imports and exports of parasites, their vectors and disease vectors, what can lead to local endemics worldwide, or even to pandemics that have a significant impact on human and animal health. Thus, there are no longer any tropical diseases that can be avoided by entering these countries. Today we have passenger disease, we have local zoonoses and we have diseases due to imported animals and plants (Melhorn Aspöck ey al., 2008). Zoonotic potential of worldwide spread endoparasites is of major importance due to dwelling proximity and common share of the same living space. Although dogs and cats in the households are usually well cared the frequency of antiparasitic treatments may vary and can be irregular in a great number (Becker el al., 2012). This is the reason why animals without any clinical signs may be a carrier for the infection. Some well-documented and typical canine/feline parasites are responsible for the spread of important zoonotic diseases. Those well-known zoonoses include echinococcosis, larva migrans (toxocariosis, ancylostomatidosis), and emerging and reemerging infections, such as cryptosporidiosis and giardiasis (Martínez-Moreno et al., 2007). All these intestinal parasites have an orofecal transmission cycle and most important factor for dissemination of these parasites is triggered by shedding of eggs or (oo)cysts into the environment (Claerebout et al., 2009. Antiparasitic control measures are based on the prevention (antihelmintic treatments) or reduction of worm eggs and (oo)cysts shedding into the environment. Therefore parasite preventive and control programs should be based and focused on active monitoring of endoparasites distributions, analysis of the environmental contamination and identification of potential zoonotic agents. The most commonly protozoan and helminth species occurring in Europe are Giardia spp. and Toxocara canis, respectively. Special veterinary interest is focused on Giardia spp. where this infection is not always easy to cure and their roles as a zoonotic agent is not entirely clear (Pallant et al., 2015). T. canis is zoonotic and poses a health risk especially for the children (Macpherson, 2013). Strongyloides stercoralis represents another potentially zoonotic helminth agent (Deplazes et al., 2011). Others important parasitic diseases are represented by hookworm infections caused by Ancylostoma spp. and Trichuris vulpis (Traversa, 2011).

In contrast with stray dogs and cats, much less data is available for household pets. Despite the increasing numbers of dogs kept as companion animals in Slovakia during the past years, there are no data reporting the situation regarding parasite infections and vector-borne diseases in this group of animals. In Europe, the known works exist regarding parasite fauna in household dogs in Albania (Shukullari et al., 2015), Greek Islands (Diakou et al., 2019), and central Italy (Scaramozzino et al., 2018). Moreover, less information is available on the prevalence of endoparasites in cats. However, some studies about the cats endoparasites were reported from Transylvania (Romania) (Mircean et al., 2010), Netherlands (Nijsse et al., 2016), and Poland (Wierzbowska et al., 2020). All above mentioned facts led us to the analysis of endoparasites incidence in domestic animals which were brought to the veterinary clinic by their owners either for preventive examination or examination based on clinical signs of disease.

Fecal samples were collected from 257 dogs and 50 cats at the veterinary medical center in Bratislava within the period of August 2018 up to December 2019. Most of the dog’s samples (254) were collected by dog’s owners, who came to the veterinary medical center for preventive care or were examined due to some gastrointestinal problems.

Totally 307 feces samples were examined for the endoparasite infection. Animals were sampled by owners during natural emptying for five consecutive days thus obtaining better chance of Giardia cysts detection. Owners who sent samples provided information on the animal origin, age and gender. Ethical approval was not required since all activities performed on dogs and cats in this study were performed by routine diagnostic procedures performed by veterinarians at each study site. Consent for the examination and sampling from pet owners of were obtained on a case-by-case basis. The research related to animals complied with all the relevant national regulations and institutional policies for the care and use of animals. Therefore, no additional authorization was required. The proposal was reviewed and approved by the Ethical Commission of Institute of Parasitology SAS in Košice.

All samples were stored without any preservation at 4°C and transferred directly to the laboratory at the Institute of Parasitology SAS in Košice, for further parasitological examination. The entire examination was performed within 24 – 48 hrs. Fecal samples were examined macroscopically for the detection of proglottids and then screened microscopically for the presence of worm eggs and protozoan oocysts. A flotation method with the Shaeter’s flotation solution with specific gravity of 1.27 g.ml^-1 was used for the coproscopical examinations. Three grams of fecal sample was mixed with water and centrifuged for 5 minutes at 1200 rpm (Eppendorf 5804 centrifuge, Germany). After the pouring out of supernatant, the Shaeter’s flotation solution was added into 2/3 of the test tube and stirred with the sediment, and then centrifuged once again. The Faust flotation solution with specific gravity of 1.18 g.ml^-1 was used for the detection of Giardia cysts. After the centrifugation, 3 drops were taken from the surface of the flotation solution and put on a slide. All samples were further examined under the light microscope at 200 x and 400 x magniﬁcation (Leica Microsystems, DM 5000B light microscope, Germany). Parasitic elements were identified based on morphological characteristics by light microscopy (Mircean et al., 211). Based on morphological and morphometric characteristics, the oocysts were identified within species: Cystoisospora spp.; Sarcocystis spp.; and Hammondia/Neospora-like (N. caninumand Hammondia heydorni) (Dubey et al., 2002).

Subsequently, all samples positive for Giardia spp. cysts were reexamined by the PCR method. DNA was extracted directly from the fresh feces samples. An aliquot sample of 200 mg of feces material was homogenized with Qiagen Tissue Lyser solution (Qiagen, Germany). In next step the DNA was purified by Quick-DNA™ Fecal/Soil Microbe Miniprep Kit. (Zymoresearch, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions and stored at -20 °C until further use.

Amplification of glutamate dehydrogenase gene (gdh) was performed by semi-nested PCR. The resulting fragments were of 432 bp size. Amplification of beta – giardin gene (βg) was performed by nested PCR. The resulting fragment was of 511bp size. Amplification by semi- nested PCR and nested PCR in 25ml volume for the primary amplification contained 1X CoralLoad PCR Buffer, 1 mM MgCl2, 200mM of each dNTP, 500nM of GDHef and GDHir primers, 2,5 U TaqPlus DNA Polymerase (Qiagen, Germany) and 5ml of DNA. Towards the secondary amplification (only for gdh gene) 1ml of PCR product from primary reaction and pair of primers GHDif and GDHir were used.

Both reactions were carried on MyCyclerTM Thermal Cycler System (Bio-Rad Laboratories, USA). Known isolate of Giardia spp. was used as a positive control and PCR water was used as a negative control. Both controls were included into each PCR reaction. Obtained amplicons were separated on 1.5% agarose gel stained by GelRed® Nucleic Acid Gel Stain (BIOTIUM, USA) and TAE buffer (40 mM Tris, pH 7.8, 20 mM acetic acid, 2 mM EDTA).

Statistical analysis was done using Windows SPSS® (version 11.5) (StatSoft, Inc. STATISTICA, 2007). Cross tables and Chi-square tests were used to calculate possible correlations between age, sex or purity of breed and potential zoonotic endoparasites agents (Giardia spp., Toxocara spp. Strongyloides stercoralis and family Ancylostomatidae). Differences were considered significant at p <0.05 and highly significant at p <0.01.

Total prevalence of endoparasites

The population of examined animals consisted of household owned dogs and cats. Collected fecal samples of 257 dogs and 50 cats were examined coproscopically for the presence of endoparasites. Out of 307 investigated fecal samples 107 were positive for the propagative parasitic stages of what represented the overall prevalence of 34.9%. Examination confirmed that 86 dogs (33.5%) and 21 cats (42.0%) were positive with one or more different parasitic species and genera. However, the majority of animals (25.4%) were infected with only one parasite species. Mixed infections were found in 9.8% of examined samples.

Dogs samples

In 257 of dogs fecal samples, 12 different species of endoparasites were detected. Those found were: Giardia spp., Cystoisopsora spp., and Sarcocystis spp., Hammondia/Neospora-like, Angiostrongylus vasorum, Capillaria aerophila, Crenosoma vulpis, Toxocara canis, Toxascaris leonina, Trichuris vulpis, Strongyloides stercoralis and eggs from the family Ancylostomatidae (Table 1). The household dogs were infected most frequently with Giardia spp. (20.2%). This was followed by Cystoisospora spp. (9.3%), Toxocara canis (7.4%), and eggs from the family Ancylostomatidae (4.3%), what is also a potential zoonotic agent. Capillaria aerophila eggs were observed in 4.3% of examined samples. Eggs of Trichuris vulpis, Strongyloides stercoralis larvae were detected in 1.2% of samples. Pulmonary worm larvae of Angiostrongylus vasorum was also detected during the coproscopical examination in 2 samples. The prevalence of Toxascaris leonina, Crenosoma vulpis, and Sarcocystis spp. was 0.8%. The lowest prevalence was recorded in Hammondia/Neospora-like cysts infection which was found in 0.4% of all samples. Out of the 257 examined dogs 59 (23.0%) feces samples contained only one type (family, genus or species) of parasite. Twenty seven samples (10.5%) contained two or more endoparasites of various origins.

Table 1

The prevalence of parasitic species in dogs (n − 257)
Parasite	P	Prevalence (%)
Giardia spp.	52	20.2
Cystoisospora spp.	24	9.3
Toxocara canis	19	7.4
Capillaria aerophila	11	4.3
Trichuris vulpis	3	1.2
Strongyloides stercoralis	3	1.2
Toxascaris leonina	2	0.8
Crenosoma vulpis	2	0.8
Sarcocystis spp.	2	0.8
Hammondia/Neospora- like	1	0.4
f. Ancylostomatidae	11	4.3
P – positive samples, n- the total number of samples; f – family

Giardia spp. cysts were confirmed not only microscopically, but also by the PCR method. Out of the 52 G. duodenalis isolates confirmed by coproscopical examinations, 59.6% (31/52) were successfully amplified only at the ß giardin loci. Twenty one isolates (40.4%) were amplified at the gdh and ß giardin loci.

The examined dogs were divided by age into two groups. 89 (34.6%) of them were within the age of 1 year. Dogs up to 1 year were infected more often than older dogs. Distribution of endoparasites according the age, sex and breed is shown on the Table 2.

Table 2

The occurrence of endoparasites in household dogs according to the age, gender and breed.
Parasite	Age		Gender
Parasite	≤ one year (n = 89) p	≥ one year (n-168) P	Female (n = 152) P	Male (n = 105) p	Mix breed (n = 122) P	Purebred (n = 135) P
Giardia spp.	26	25	28	24	24	28
Cystoisospora spp.	20	4	17	7	10	14
Toxocara canis	10	9	12	7	8	11
Capillaria aerophila	7	4	4	7	8	3
Trichuris vulpis	0	3	2	1	2	1
Strongyloides stercoralis	2	1	2	1	1	2
Toxascaris leonina	2	0	2	0	0	2
Crenosoma vulpis	1	1	1	1	0	2
Sarcocystis spp.	1	1	1	1	1	1
Hammondia/Neospora- like	1	0	0	1	0	1
f. Ancylostomatidae	4	7	8	3	5	6
P – positive samples, n – the total number of samples, f-family

Correlations between potential zoonotic parasites (Giardia spp., Toxocara spp., Stronyloides stercoralis and eggs from family Ancylostomatidae) infection and age were determined. The chi-square statistic was 13.8876 and the p-value was 0.003062. The result was significant at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01. The dogs were between 2 months up to 16 years of age were divided into two groups. Dogs up to 1 year (n = 89; 34.6%) and dogs older than 1 year (n = 168; 65.4%). The younger dogs up to 1 year (47.2%) were infected considerably more (p < 0.01) than the older ones (25.0%). However, we have to state that the dogs older than 1 year were in numbers nearly twice as much than the younger ones.

Cats samples

Out of 50 examined cat feces samples, a simple infection was found in 19 cats (38.0%), and multiple infections were found in 2 cats (4.0%). Among of 21 positive cases 57.1% (n = 12) were male and 42.9% (n = 9) were female cats. Regarding the cat breed 47.6% (n = 10) were mixed cat breeds, 38.1% (n = 8) were European shorthair, and 14.3% (n = 3) were Ragdoll. The cat age ranged between 2 months up to 9 years. Cats younger than 1-year old were infected more frequently what represented 61.9% of all cases in this study. Parasites detected were Giardia spp., Cystoisopsora spp., and T. cati. The first stage larvae of pulmonary lungworm Aelurostrongylus abstrusus was detected during the coproscopical examination as well. Though, it was found only in 2% of all examined samples. The most prevalent parasite was Giardia spp. (36.0%). This was followed by Cystoisospora spp. (4.0%). Helminth T. cati was found in 6.0% of samples. Cats up to 1 year of age were likewise dogs infected more significantly (53.3 %) than the older animals (20.0%; p < 0.01).

Out of the 18 cat feces samples, which were positive for Giardia cysts during coproscopically examination and submitted to the nested and semi - nested PCR, 16 were confirmed to be positive at the ß giardin loci. Only two isolates were successfully amplified at both the gdh and ß giardin markers.

Correlation between potential zoonotic parasite infection and gender/breed

Gender in dogs was distributed unevenly and were composed of 105 males (40.9 %) and 152 females (59.1 %). Gender distribution in cats was more even and consisted of 30 males (56.0 %) and 20 females (44.0 %). There was no significant correlation found between breed (pure breed vs. mixed-breed) and gender. It appears those two examined factors do not belong to the risk factors for potential zoonotic endoparasitism spread involving household dogs and cats population.

A key objective for the control of dogs and cats parasites is reduction the risk of transmission for zoonotic diseases. Parasitic fauna and endoparasites prevalence in household pets depend on many abiotic and biotic factors such as geographic location, climate, demographic factors, sampling protocols, and diagnostic techniques, status of animal ownership, veterinary facilities, antihelmintic usage and public awareness (Katagiri and Oliveira-Sequeira, 2008). Our study detected high parasitic prevalences in dogs and cats of which most of them are of zoonotic importance. The diversity in contamination of canine and feline feces with different groups of parasites points out on the substantial potential of public spaces contamination and presents a constant and non-diminishing hazard to the public health. The occurrence of relatively high infection intensities can be result of deworming programs absence or bad selection of the antiparasitic drug administered without adequate copro-parasitological examination. Recent study is the first who provides data on gastrointestinal endoparasites in household dogs and cats in Slovakia. Almost 30.7% of dogs and 36% of cats were positive for the protozoan infections (mainly Giardia cysts) and nematode endoparasites. Sofar the known endoparasites occurrence in Slovakia is known from coproscopical feces examinations from parks and playgrounds in urban settlements (Antolová et al., 2004; Ondriska et al., 2013; Papajová et al., 2014; Bystrianska et al., 2019).

The nematodes infections identified in the dogs and cats feces may cause zoonotic diseases and pose a risk for human health. T. canis and T. cati may lead to the visceral and ocular larva migrans, which may trigger blindness. Similarly to hookworm A. caninum which also may set off cutaneous larva migrans (Heukelbach and Hengge, 2009). The study of Fahrion et al. (2011) showed that a high percentage of Toxocara eggs found in the dogs feces identified by PCR analysis were actually T. cati where coprophagy of cat feces is quite common in dogs. However, Toxocara eggs in the present study have not been distinguished by PCR. We do not know how many of the Toxocara eggs found coproscopically were actually only contaminants from ingested cat feces. Since there is no difference in the zoonotic potential between T. canis and T. cati (Cardillo et al., 2009) this finding deserves special attention.

The overall endoparasites prevalence in household pets in this study was 34.9%. Detected prevalence was comparable to that obtained in studies conducted in Albania and Brazil (Shukullari et al., 2015; Curia et al., 2017) where the majority of animals were infected with only one parasite species (25.4%). In our study the majority of infection was represented by protozoa (31.6%) and remaining (17.9%) were helminthic infections. Combined infections were found in 9.8% of all examined cases.

The first stage larvae of Angiostrongylus vasorum were diagnosed in two dog fecal samples. This cardiopulmonary nematode, which can be found in dogs and several wild canines has been reported by identification of first-stage larvae from fecal examination what was similar to Greece findings (Diakou, 1995; Founta et al., 2000).

Our study showed that endoparasites prevalence in domestic cats (42.0%) is higher than the prevalence reported in a study from Canada, where only 6.0% of samples were positive for the parasite developmental stages (Hoopes et al., 2015). Similar lower infectivity levels (10.1%) were reported in study conducted in Japan (Itoh et al., 2016) and Germany (22.8%) (Barutzki and Schaper, 2013).

The prevalence’s observed in this recent work was comparable to those observed in Greece and Hungary (Shukullari, et al., 2015; Kostopoulou et al., 2017; Capari et al., 2013). In contrast to dogs less data is available for the cats. In our study, the prevalence of T. cacti was found to be about 6.0%, Cystoisospora spp. 4.0%, and A. abstrusus 2.0%. The most common parasite was Giardia spp. with prevalence of 36.0%.

Helminth T. cati was found in 6.0% of examined samples and when compared with results stray cats results in Iran (44%) and Germany (27.1%) (Becker el al., 2012; Sharif et al., 2010), the prevalence in our study was significantly lower. This observation points out on the importance of adequate treatment and animals deworming. Work of Barutzki and Shaper (2013) found that the prevalence of T. cati in Germany was 4.7%. This is comparable to our results. In contrast to our data Capari et al. (2013) study found that the prevalence of endoparasites infection in Hungarian domestic cats was 17.4%. The data is comparable with studies from Brazil and Cyprus where T. cati was found to be prevalent in 16.67% and 12%, respectively (Diakou et al., 2017; Ramos et al., 2020).

Parasite Aelurostrongylus abstrusus is the most well-known nematode infecting cat respiratory tract as its natural host (Traversa et al., 2010). In our study, the larvae of A. abstrusus feline lungworm, were found only in one of fecal sample, but the Baermann technique was not used. Nematode larvae were detected by the floatation technique; and therefore, the actual infection with A. abstrusus is presumably underestimated.

In general canine and feline feces samples were coinfected largely with protozoan cysts of Giardia spp. Since Giardia is a common cause of diarrheal disease in humans the companion animals are able to transmit it on the owners. Depending on the investigated animal population the prevalence data of Giardia infections in dogs and cats may vary extremely. As a result, the utilized diagnostic method is the most important factor affecting the prevalence rate (Bouzid et al., 2015). Our study demonstrated that the overall prevalence of Giardia spp. in domestic dogs and cats was 22.1% what is similar to study from Albania, where Giardia spp. prevalence was 26.4% (Shukullari et al., 2015). The overall Giardia spp. prevalence in cats was 36.0% and in dogs 20.2% this indicates that every third cat and every fifth dog were infected with this potentially zoonotic protozoan parasite - Giardia spp. Because of various Giardia hosts-specific genotypes/species in dogs and cats more studies are required on genotypisation of Giardia isolates in order to better understand the giardiasis epidemiology and transmission ecology. The infection prevalence in this study in household kept animals was much more higher when compared with the study of Bouzid et al. (2015), where the Giardia spp. occurrence was 15.2% in dogs and 12% in cats. We assume that the difference between those studies was due to use of different quantitative and qualitative diagnostic methodology.

Potential zoonotic agents represented by T. canis and eggs from family Ancylostomatidae were found in 7.4% and 4.3% of samples, respectively. Our study revealed that T. canis is the most common nematode in examined domestic dogs (7.39%). The prevalence of T. canis was comparable with studies where values were 8.7% (Katagiri and Oliveira-Sequeira, 2008; Klimpel et al., 2010), and 5.5% (Oliveira-Sequeira et al., 2002).

In general, the eggs from family Ancylostomatidae had higher prevalence than found in our study. In Brazil the hookworm prevalence ranged from 47–95.7% (Curia et al., 2017; Klimpel et al., 2010). In Romania it was 33% (Mircean et al., 2010). Dogs and cats up to 1 year of age were infected significantly more often than older animals (p < 0.01). The reason behind is that immune system of puppies and kittens is developing and not able yet to generate sufficient immunity (Gates and Nolan, 2009). Obviously a primary infection leads to an acquired immunity and does can reduce the parasite prevalence in older dog. Another possibility is that females may infect their puppies inside the uterus or via milk (Melhorn Aspöck et al., 2008).

Results of the present study indicate that animal gender does not play an important role as a risk factor for the endoparasites occurrence. This finding is similar to results from the other European studies (Riggio et al., 2013; Zanzani et al., 2014; Savilla et al, 2011). However, the age was identified as an important risk factor. The results suggest that young dogs (< 1 year) are significantly more susceptible to the ascarid and coccidial infections than adults. This is consistent with the findings from other studies (Claerebout et al., 2009; Mircean et al., 2010) where parasites incidence in young dogs is higher. This is also a justification for utilization of more effective deworming protocols, especially against ascarides. Another study emphasizes the importance of protozoan infections for dog health, especially in their first year of life [Claerebout et al., 2009; Mircean et al., 2010; Little et al., 2009). Testing of canine and feline fecal samples contributes to knowledge on the prevalence of various parasitic infections in companion animals. This survey is the first which evaluated the endoparasite status of client-owned, veterinary cared dogs and cats in Slovakia. The data presented in this study indicate the presence of a wide variety of endoparasites and demonstrate relatively high prevalence of potentially zoonotic agents. Therefore, the veterinary doctors and pets owners need to step up their interest on periodical endoparasites examination and antihelmintic treatment. Only these approaches will reduce the parasitism in pets and consequently lower the potential for transmission of zoonotic agents to humans.

Close and frequent contact between pets and people increases the risks for the transmission of zoonotic diseases. The contamination of the environment by dogs and cats feces represents an everyday serious health hazards. It is due to the spread of parasite developmental (cysts, eggs and larval) stages which can survive in the ecosystems for a very long time. We recommend the use of appropriate fecal and molecular diagnostic techniques to detect the spread of gastrointestinal parasites. The proper and timely diagnosis of zoonotic agents is very important. The utilization of the proper treatments and control strategies will lessen the risk of infection spread to the other household animals, and also reduce the subsequent exposure of humans to zoonotic parasites.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research related to animals complied with all the relevant national regulations and institutional policies for the care and use of animals. The proposal was reviewed and approved by the Ethical Commission of Institute of Parasitology SAS in Košice. Consent for the examination and sampling from pet owners of were obtained on a case-by-case basis.

Consent to Publish

Yes

Authors' contributions

Conceptualization - IP and JŠo; methodology - JŠ and IP; formal analysis - JŠ, IP, JT and LT; investigation - JŠ, IP and ĽŠ; resources - IP; data duration - JB and IP; original draft preparation - JŠ and IP; review and editing - JŠ, IP, JŠo and VŠ; supervision - IP; project administration - IP; funding acquisition - IP. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic, by support from the Slovak Academy of Sciences, VEGA no. 2/0138/21 and The Slovak Research and Development Agency under the contract no. APVV-18-0351.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Data availability

The datasets in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Antolová D, Reiterová K, Miterpáková M, Stanko M, Dubinský P (2004) Circulation of Toxocara spp. in suburban and rural ecosystems in the Slovak Republic. Vet Parasitol 126:0317-324. htpp://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2004.08.005
Barutzki D, Schaper R (2013) Occurrence and regional distribution of Aelurostrongylus abstrusus in cats in Germany. Parasitol Res 112:855-861. htpp://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-012-3207-0
Becker AC, Rohen M, Epe C, Schnieder T (2012) Prevalence of endoparasites in stray and fostered dogs and cats In Northern Germany. Parasitol Res 111:849-857. htpp://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-012-2909-7
Bouzid M, Halai K, Jeffreys D, Hunter PR (2015) The prevalence of Giardia infection in dogs and cats: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence studies from stool samples. Vet Parasitol 207:181-202. htpp://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.12.011
Bystrianska J, Papajová I, Šoltys J, Sasáková N (2019) Contamination of sandpits with soil-transmitted helminths eggs in an urban tnvironment. Folia veterinaria 63:60-63.
Capari B, Hamel D, Visser M, Winter R, Pfister K, Rehbein S (2013) Parasitic infections of domestic cats, Felis catus, in western Hungary. Vet Parasitol 192, 33-42. htpp://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.11.011
Cardillo N, Rosa A, Ribicich M, López C, Sommerfeldt I (2009) Experimental infection with Toxocara cati in BALB/c mice, migratory behaviour and pathological changes. Zoonoses Publ Health 56:198-205. htpp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1863-2378.2008.01182.x
Claerebout E, Casaert S, Dalemans AC, De Wilde N, Levecke B, Vercruysse J, Geurden T (2009) Giardia and other intestinal parasites in different dog populations in northern Belgium. Vet Parasitol 161:41-46. htpp://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.11.024
Curia NHA, Paschoalb AMO, Massarab RL, Santosc HA, Guimarãesc MP, Passamania M, Chiarellod AG (2017) Risk factors for gastrointestinal parasite infections of dogs living around protected areas of the Atlantic Forest: implications for human and wildlife health. Braz J Biol 77:88-395. htpp://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.19515
Deplazes P, van Knapen F, Schweiger A, Overgaauw PA (2011) Role of pet dogs and cats in the transmission of helminthic zoonoses in Europe: with a focus on echinococcosis and toxocarosis. Vet Parasitol 182:41-53. htpp://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.07.014
Diakou A (1995) Angiostrongylus vasorum und angiostrongylosis in Greece. Bull Hell Vet Med Soc, 46:51-56 [in Greek].
Diakou A, Sofroniou D, Di Cesare A, Kokkinos P, Traversa D (2017) Occurrence and zoonotic potential of endoparasites in cats of Cyprus and a new distribution area for Troglostrongylus brevior. Parasitol Res 116 (12):3429-3435. htpp://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-017-5651-3
Diakou A, Di Cesare A, Morelli S et al (2019) Endoparasites and vector-borne pathogens in dogs from Greek islands: Pathogen distribution and zoonotic implications. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 13:e0007003. htpp://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007003
Dubey JP, Barr BC, Barta JR et al (2002) Redescription of Neospora caninum and its differentiation from related coccidia. Int J Parasitol 2:929-946. htpp://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-7519(02)00094-2
Fahrion AS, Schnyder M, Wichert B, Deplazes P (2011) Toxocara eggs shed by dogs and cats and their molecular and morphometric species-specific identification: is the finding of T. cati eggs shed by dogs of epidemiological relevance? Vet Parasitol 177:186–189. htpp://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.11.028
Founta A, Theodoridis Y, Frydas S, Chleiouvakis E, Dasopoulou A (2000) Helminth parasites of digestive tract and lungs of dogs in Serrae Province. Anima 8:23–28 [in Greek].
Gates MC, Nolan TJ (2009) Endoparasite prevalence and recurrence across different age groups of dogs and cats. Vet Parasitol 166:153-158. htpp://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.07.041
Heukelbach J, Hengge U (2009) Bed bugs, leeches and hookworm larvae in the skin. Clin Dermatol 27:285-290. htpp://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2008.10.008
Hoopes J, Hill JE, Polley L, Fernando C, Wagner B. Schurer J, Jenkins E (2015) Enteric parasites of free-roaming, owned, and rural cats in prairie regions of Canada. Can Vet J 56:495-501.
Itoh Y, Itoh N, Kimura Y, Kanai K (2016) Prevalence of intestinal parasites in breeding cattery cats in Japan. J Feline Med Surg 18:834-837. htpp://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X15597023
Katagiri S, Oliveira-Sequeira TCG (2008) Prevalence of dog intestinal parasites and risk perception of zoonotic infection by dog owners in Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Zoo Public Health 55:406-413. htpp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1863-2378.2008.01163.x
Klimpel S, Heukelbach J, Pothmann D, Rückert S (2010) Gastrointestinal and ectoparasites from urban stray dogs in Fortaleza (Brazil): high infection risk for humans? Parasitol Res 107:713-719. htpp://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-010-1926-7
Kostopoulou D, Claerebout E, Arvanitis D, Ligda P, Voutzourakis N, Casaert S, Sotiraki S (2017) Abundance, zoonotic potential and risk factors of intestinal parasitism amongst dog and cat populations: the scenario of Crete, Greece. Parasit Vectors 10:43. htpp://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-1989-8
Little SE, Johnson EM, Lewis D et al (2009) Prevalence of intestinal parasites in pet dogs in the United States. Vet Parasitol 166:144-152. htpp://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.07.044
Macpherson CN (2013) The epidemiology and public health importance of toxocariasis: a zoonosis of global importance. Int J Parasitol 43:999-1008. htpp://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2013.07.004
Martínez-Moreno FJ, Hernández H, López-Cobos E, Becerra C, Acosta I, Martínez-Moreno A (2007) Estimation of canine intestinal parasites in Córdoba (Spain) and their risk to public health. Vet Parasitol 143:7-13. htpp://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.08.004
Melhorn Aspöck H, Behr C, Combes C (2008) Encyclopedia of Parasitology; Third Edition, ISBN: 978-3-540-48994-8; Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, New York.
Mircean V, Titilincu A, Vasile C (2010) Prevalence of endoparasites in household cat (Felis catus) populations from Transylvania (Romania) and association with risk factors. Vet Parasitol 171:163-166. htpp://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.03.005
Mircean V, Cozma V, Gyorke A (2011) Coproscopical diagnostic of parasitic diseases in animals. Risoprint, Cluj-Napoca. (In Romanian).
Nijsse R, Ploeger HW, Wagenaar JA, Mughini-Gras L (2016) Prevalence and risk factors for patent Toxocara infections in cats and cat owners’ attitude towards deworming. Parasitol Res 115:4519-4525. htpp://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-016-5242-8
Oliveira-Sequeira TCG, Amarante AFT, Ferrari TB, Nunes LC (2002) Prevalence of intestinal parasites in dogs from São Paulo State, Brazil. Vet Parasitol 103:19-27. htpp://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-4017(01)00575-1
Ondriska F, Mačuhová K, Melicherová J, Reiterová K, Valentová D, Beladičová V, Halgoš J (2013) Toxocariasis in urban environment of western Slovakia. Helminthologia 50:261-268. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11687-013-0139-x
Pallant L, Barutzki D, Schaper R, Thompson RC (2015) The epidemiology of infections with Giardia species and genotypes in well cared for dogs and cats in Germany. Parasites Vectors 8:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-014-0615-2
Papajová I, Pipiková J, Papaj J, Čižmár A (2014) Parasitic contamination of urban and rural environments in the Slovak Republic: dog's excrements as a source. Helminthologia 51:273-280. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11687-014-0241-8
Ramos NV, Lourenço e Silva M, Barreto MS, Barros LA, Mendes-de-Almeida F (2020) Endoparasites of household and shelter cats in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Braz J Vet Parasitol 29:e012819. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1984-29612019110
Riggio F, Mannella R, Ariti G, Perrucci S (2013) Intestinal and lung para-sites in owned dogs and cats from central Italy. Vet Parasitol 193:78-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.11.026
Salb AL, Barkema HW, Elkin BT et al (2008) Dogs as aources and aentinels of parasites in humans and wildlife, Northern Canada. Emerg Infect Dis 14:60-63. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1401.071113
Savilla TM, Joy JE, May JD, Somerville CC (2011) Prevalence of dog intestinal nematode parasites in south central West Virginia, USA. Vet Parasitol 178:115-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.12.034
Scaramozzino P, Carvelli A, Iacoponi F, De Liberato C (2018) Endoparasites in household and shelter dogs from Central Italy. Int J Vet Sci Med 6:45-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijvsm.2018.04.003
Sharif M, Daryani A, Nasrolahei M, Ziapour SP (2010) A survey of gastrointestinal helminthes in stray cats in northern Iran. Comp Clin Pathol 19:257-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00580-009-0866-z
Shukullari E, Hamel D, Rapti D, Pfister K, Visser M, Winter R, Rehbein S (2015) Parasites and vector-borne diseases in client-owned dogs in Albania. Intestinal and pulmonary endoparasite infections. Parasitol Res 114:4579-4590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-015-4704-8
StatSoft, Inc. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 8.0., 2007. www.statsoft.com.
Traversa D (2011) Are we paying too much attention to cardio-pulmonary nematodes and neglecting old-fashioned worms like Trichuris vulpis? Parasites Vectors 4:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-4-32
Traversa D, Di Cesare A, Conboy G (2010) Canine and feline cardiopulmonary parasitic nematodes in Europe: Emerging and underestimated. Parasit Vectors 3:62. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-3-62
Traub RJ, Robertson ID, Irwin PJ, Mencke N, Thompson RCAA (2002) The role of dogs in transmission of gastrointestinal parasites in a remote tea-growing community In Northeastern India. Am J Trop Med Hyg 67:539-545. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2002.67.539
Traub RJ, Robertson ID, Irwin PJ, Mencke N, Thompson RCAA (2005) Canine gastrointestinal parasitic zoonoses in India. Trends Parasitol 21:42-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2004.10.011
Zanzani SA, Gazzonis AL, Scarpa P (2014) Intestinal parasites of owned dogs and cat from metropolitan and micropolitan areas: prevalence, zoonotic risks, and pet owner awareness in northern Italy. Biomed Res Int 2014:696508. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/696508.
Wierzbowska IA, Kornás S, Piontek AM, Rola K (2020) The prevalence of endoparasites of free ranging cats (Felis catus) from urban habitats in southern Poland. Animals 10:748. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040748

PDF

Reviews received at journal
02 Mar, 2021
Reviewers invited by journal
02 Mar, 2021
Editor assigned by journal
01 Mar, 2021
First submitted to journal
25 Feb, 2021

You are reading this latest preprint version

The Prevalence of Endoparasites in Slovakian Household Dogs and Cats

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Materials And Methods

Results

Total prevalence of endoparasites

Dogs samples

Cats samples

Correlation between potential zoonotic parasite infection and gender/breed

Discussion

Conclusions

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1