Prevalence and Sequence-Based Identity of Rumen Fluke in Cattle and Deer in New Caledonia

Abstract

An abattoir survey was performed in the French Melanesian archipelago of New Caledonia to determine the prevalence of paramphistomes in cattle and deer and to generate material for molecular typing at species and subspecies level. Prevalence in adult cattle was high at animal level (70% of 387 adult cattle) and batch level (81%). Prevalence was lower in calves at both levels (33% of 484 calves, 51% at batch level). Animals from 2 of 7 deer farms were positive for rumen fluke, with animal-level prevalence of 41.4% (29/70) and 47.1% (33/70), respectively. Using ITS-2 sequencing, 3 species of paramphistomes were identified, i.e. Calicophoron calicophorum, Fischoederius elongatus and Orthocoelium streptocoelium. All three species were detected in cattle as well as deer, suggesting the possibility of rumen fluke transmission between the two host species. Based on heterogeneity in ITS-2 sequences, the C. calicophorum population comprises two clades, both of which occur in cattle as well as deer. The results suggest two distinct routes of rumen fluke introduction into this area. This approach has wider applicability for investigations of the origin of rumen fluke infections and for the possibility of parasite transmission at the livestock-wildlife interface.

Evaluation of anthelmintic drugs against egg development of rumen flukes recovered from cattle raised in the humid tropics of Mexico

“…The presence of rumen fluke infections in ruminants has been widely reported across several European countries such as the UK (Jones et al ., 2017), Ireland (Toolan et al ., 2015) and the Netherlands (Ploeger et al ., 2017), and on other continents such as Oceania (Cauquil et al ., 2016) and Asia (Ali et al ., 2018). In America, the presence of rumen flukes in ruminants has been reported in Peru (Pinedo et al ., 2010) and Mexico (Ojeda-Robertos et al ., 2014).…”

A Universal Approach to Molecular Identification of Rumen Fluke Species Across Hosts, Continents, and Sample Types

“…Accurate identification of rumen fluke species is important for understanding of disease epidemiology and control options. Examples include studies of spread of infectious agents through animal movements ( 51 ), origins and biosecurity risks posed by non-indigenous species of parasitological importance ( 7 ) and recognition of relevant intermediate host snail species ( 4 ). Pathology and severity of paramphistomosis may also be affected by the rumen fluke species ( 21 ), although relatively little is known about this, potentially due in part to difficulties with species identification.…”

“…These were made available for this study to ascertain the suitability of our methodology across countries, host species, parasite species and sample types, and to generate preliminary data on the geographic and host-species distribution of paramphistome species. A total of 387 specimens were processed, including at least 2 or 3 individual specimens extracted from 173 host animals native to: Australia ( 2 ), Belgium ( 2 ), Cuba ( 6 ), Dominican Republic ( 1 ), India ( 1 ), Ireland ( 46 ), Italy ( 3 ), the Netherlands ( 17 ), New Caledonia ( 51 ), Slovakia ( 2 ), St. Kitts ( 7 ), Tanzania ( 2 ), the UK ( 33 ), and the USA ( 1 ).…”

“…Rumen fluke, or paramphistomes, are parasitic trematodes that reside in the digestive tracts of ruminants, including livestock such as cattle ( 1 , 2 ), sheep ( 3 , 4 ), goats ( 5 , 6 ), and farmed deer ( 7 ); camelids ( 8 ) and wildlife, such as antelope ( 9 – 11 ), buffalo ( 12 ), and various species of wild deer ( 12 , 13 ).…”

“…Diagnosis of rumen fluke infection can be based on inspection of the reticulo-rumen for presence of adult flukes at slaughter ( 7 , 22 ), on detection of rumen fluke eggs in feces ( 4 , 21 ), or on detection of immature paramphistomes in excreta or at post mortem ( 35 ). Rumen fluke eggs are very similar morphologically to eggs from the liver fluke, Fasciola hepatica , which could lead to misdiagnosis of infection status and treatment response ( 4 ).…”