First report and genotyping of Dientamoeba fragilis in pet budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus), with zoonotic importance

Abstract

The protozoan Dientamoeba fragilis is one of the most common parasites in the digestive system of humans worldwide. The host range and transmission routes of D. fragilis, including the role of animals, are still ambiguous with few reports from non‐human primates, sheep, rodents, pigs, a cat and a dog. In this study, we used microscopic and TaqMan qPCR analyses to investigate D. fragilisin 150 faecal samples from pet budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) in the Central Anatolia Region of Turkey. Dientamoeba fragilis DNA was detected in 32 samples, resulting in a mean prevalence of 21.3%. In microscopic examination, trophozoites/cysts of D. fragilis were detected in 13 of 32 qPCR‐positive samples. SSU rRNA sequence analyses of the qPCR‐positive isolates identified genotype 1 of D. fragilis as predominant in budgerigars. Phylogenetic analyses of the SSU rRNA gene region clustered D. fragilis genotypes, as well as other trichomonads, in separate monophyletic clusters with bootstrap values ≥79.0. Our study provides the first evidence for the natural host status of pet budgerigars for D. fragilisand contributes to the knowledge of the epidemiology of this parasite. The high prevalence of genotype 1 of D. fragilis suggests that pet budgerigars are suitable reservoirs for zoonotic transmission. Our findings contribute to an increased awareness and knowledge of D. fragilis infections in the context of a one‐health approach.

First detection and molecular characterization of Dientamoeba fragilis in cattle

“…Similar to our study, the rate of parasites detected by the molecular method (21.33%) was significantly higher than the rate determined by the staining method (8.66%). In addition, it has F I G U R E 4 Evolutionary distances of identified Dientamoeba fragilis isolates and various trichomonads from different regions and hosts been reported that all of the isolates are genotype 1, as in all the limited number of studies on this subject, including ours (Yetismis et al, 2022).…”

“…Although D. fragilis infection is generally asymptomatic in most of the cases, it is stated that non‐specific gastrointestinal findings such as loss of appetite, diarrhoea, constipation and nausea‐vomiting can be seen when symptomatic (Clemente et al, 2021; Girginkardeşler et al, 2003; Kurt et al, 2008; Sarzhanov et al, 2021; Sivcan et al, 2018; Stark et al, 2016; Yıldız et al, 2021). However, with the recent detection of the cyst form, it was thought that D. fragilis could also settle in non‐human hosts, and studies aiming to detect the parasite in animals gained momentum (Cacciò et al, 2012; Chan et al, 2016; Munasinghe et al, 2013; Ogunniyi et al, 2014; Yetismis et al, 2022). Unfortunately, although a few previous studies report the occurrence of D. fragilis in animals, there are almost no studies in the literature in which molecular methods were used for confirmation (Chan et al, 2016; Yetismis et al, 2022).…”

“…However, with the recent detection of the cyst form, it was thought that D. fragilis could also settle in non‐human hosts, and studies aiming to detect the parasite in animals gained momentum (Cacciò et al, 2012; Chan et al, 2016; Munasinghe et al, 2013; Ogunniyi et al, 2014; Yetismis et al, 2022). Unfortunately, although a few previous studies report the occurrence of D. fragilis in animals, there are almost no studies in the literature in which molecular methods were used for confirmation (Chan et al, 2016; Yetismis et al, 2022).…”

“…In genotyping studies using different gene regions such as 18S rRNA, actin and elongation factor 1α gene, it has been reported that there are two different subtypes of the parasite and genotype 1 is more common than genotype 2 (Stensvold et al, 2013). However, there is a paucity of data in the literature concerning the genetic diversity in animals, except for a few studies (Cacciò et al, 2012; Yetismis et al, 2022). In the limited number of studies reporting genotyping of D. fragilis isolates in animals, genotype 1 was detected more frequently, similar to the findings in humans (Cacciò et al, 2012; Yetismis et al, 2022).…”

“…However, there is a paucity of data in the literature concerning the genetic diversity in animals, except for a few studies (Cacciò et al, 2012; Yetismis et al, 2022). In the limited number of studies reporting genotyping of D. fragilis isolates in animals, genotype 1 was detected more frequently, similar to the findings in humans (Cacciò et al, 2012; Yetismis et al, 2022).…”