Analyze Diet
Veterinary parasitology2022; 313; 109851; doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2022.109851

Molecular diagnostics for gastrointestinal helminths in equids: Past, present and future.

Abstract: This review is aimed to (i) appraise the literature on the use of molecular techniques for the detection, quantification and differentiation of gastrointestinal helminths (GIH) of equids, (ii) identify the knowledge gaps and, (iii) discuss diagnostic prospects in equine parasitology. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews, we retrieved 54 studies (horses: 50/54; donkeys and zebras: 4/54) from four databases. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was employed in all of the studies whereas PCR amplicons were sequenced in only 18 of them. Other techniques used (including modifications of PCR) were reverse line blot, quantitative (q)PCR, restriction fragment length polymorphism, nested-PCR, PCR-directed next-generation sequencing, Southern blotting, single strand conformation polymorphism, PCR-enzyme linked immunosorbent assay, matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation-time of flight and random amplification of polymorphic DNA. Most of the studies (53/54) used nuclear ribosomal RNA (including the internal transcribed spacers, intergenic spacer, 5.8 S, 18 S, 28 S and 12 S) as target loci while cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 and random genomic regions were targeted in only three and one studies, respectively. Overall, to date, the majority of molecular studies have focused on the diagnosis and identification of GIHs of equids (i.e. species of Anoplocephala, Craterostomum, cyathostomins, Oesophagodontus, Parascaris, Strongylus, Strongyloides and Triodontophorus), with a recent shift towards investigations on anthelmintic resistance and the use of high-throughput nemabiome metabarcoding. With the increasing reports of anthelmintic resistance in equid GIHs, it is crucial to develop and apply techniques such as advanced metabarcoding for surveillance of parasite populations in order to gain detailed insights into their diversity and sustainable control. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review that evaluates molecular investigations published on the diagnosis and quantification of equid GIHs and provides useful insights into important knowledge gaps and future research directions in equid molecular parasitology.
Publication Date: 2022-12-05 PubMed ID: 36521296DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2022.109851Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
  • Journal Article
  • Systematic Review

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article mainly revolves around the review of molecular methods used to detect, differentiate, and quantify gastrointestinal parasites in equines including knowledge gaps and future possibilities in equine parasitology.

Research Context and Methods

  • The study executes a comprehensive review of the literature on molecular diagnostics in equine parasitology.
  • Focusing particularly on gastrointestinal helminths (GIH) in horses, donkeys, and zebras, the researchers examined 54 studies accessed through four databases.
  • Utilizing methods sanctioned by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), the researchers ensured clear and systematic interpretation of results.

Types of Molecular Techniques Explored

  • The study lists a range of molecular techniques used for detecting and differentiating GIH, such as Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), reverse line blot, quantitative PCR, and restriction fragment length polymorphism.
  • Out of these, PCR was the most commonly used technique across all the studies, with its amplicons sequenced in 18 of them.
  • The researchers also evaluated the usage of more innovative PCR modifications and techniques, such as nested-PCR, PCR-directed next-generation sequencing, Southern blotting, etc.

Common Loci and Parasites Targeted

  • The most frequently targeted loci in these molecular studies were nuclear ribosomal RNA, including internal transcribed spacers, intergenic spacer, and certain specific types of RNA.
  • Most studies were aimed at diagnosing and identifying specific species of GIH in equids, including species of Anoplocephala, Craterostomum, cyathostomins, and Oesophagodontus among others.

Current Shift in Research Focus and Future Perspectives

  • The review noted a shifting focus in recent studies towards understanding anthelmintic resistance and using high-throughput nemabiome metabarcoding to better understand and control parasite populations.
  • The rising trend of anthelmintic resistance in equid GIHs brings forth the need for adopting more advanced techniques like metabarcoding.
  • This study is the first systematic review that critically assesses molecular research on the diagnosis and quantification of equid GIHs, thereby providing a comprehensive overview of the state of current knowledge, identified gaps, and potential future research directions.

Cite This Article

APA
Ghafar A, Abbas G, Beasley A, Bauquier J, Wilkes EJA, Jacobson C, McConnell E, El-Hage C, Carrigan P, Cudmore L, Tennent-Brown B, Hurley J, Nielsen MK, Gauci CG, Beveridge I, Hughes KJ, Jabbar A. (2022). Molecular diagnostics for gastrointestinal helminths in equids: Past, present and future. Vet Parasitol, 313, 109851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2022.109851

Publication

ISSN: 1873-2550
NlmUniqueID: 7602745
Country: Netherlands
Language: English
Volume: 313
Pages: 109851

Researcher Affiliations

Ghafar, Abdul
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, The University of Melbourne, Werribee, Victoria, Australia.
Abbas, Ghazanfar
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, The University of Melbourne, Werribee, Victoria, Australia.
Beasley, Anne
  • School of Agriculture and Food Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia.
Bauquier, Jenni
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, The University of Melbourne, Werribee, Victoria, Australia.
Wilkes, Edwina J A
  • Racing Victoria, Flemington, Victoria, Australia.
Jacobson, Caroline
  • Centre for Animal Production and Health, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.
McConnell, Emma
  • Centre for Animal Production and Health, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.
El-Hage, Charles
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, The University of Melbourne, Werribee, Victoria, Australia.
Carrigan, Peter
  • Scone Equine Hospital, Scone, New South Wales, Australia.
Cudmore, Lucy
  • Scone Equine Hospital, Scone, New South Wales, Australia.
Tennent-Brown, Brett
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, The University of Melbourne, Werribee, Victoria, Australia.
Hurley, John
  • Swettenham Stud, Nagambie, Victoria, Australia.
Nielsen, Martin K
  • M.H. Gluck Equine Research Center, Department of Veterinary Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
Gauci, Charles G
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, The University of Melbourne, Werribee, Victoria, Australia.
Beveridge, Ian
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, The University of Melbourne, Werribee, Victoria, Australia.
Hughes, Kristopher J
  • School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia.
Jabbar, Abdul
  • Melbourne Veterinary School, The University of Melbourne, Werribee, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: jabbara@unimelb.edu.au.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Anthelmintics
  • Helminths / genetics
  • Horse Diseases / diagnosis
  • Horse Diseases / parasitology
  • Horses
  • Pathology, Molecular
  • Strongyloidea
  • Strongylus

Conflict of Interest Statement

Declaration of Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Boehringer Ingelheim did not have any role in the design or content of this manuscript.