Efficacy of parasitological diagnosis methods in wild animals kept in captivity
Parasitic diseases are common in wild animals kept in captivity, and the research of these parasites is a tool used in wildlife management actions. Once the method most used in the practice of veterinary laboratories is the direct examination, it was considered appropriate to report the parasitism i...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Arquivos do Instituto Biológico (São Paulo) 2018-02, Vol.84 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Arquivos do Instituto Biológico (São Paulo) |
container_volume | 84 |
creator | Carvalho, Aline Feola Barnabe, Anderson Sena Federsoni, Igor Popovic Ferraz, Renato Ribeiro Nogueira Marco, Rogerio Milton De Garcia, Isabel Priscilla |
description | Parasitic diseases are common in wild animals kept in captivity, and the research of these parasites is a tool used in wildlife management actions. Once the method most used in the practice of veterinary laboratories is the direct examination, it was considered appropriate to report the parasitism in captivity wildlife comparing this technique with modified methods of Hoffman, Pons and Janer (HPJ) and Willis. Fresh feces were surveyed in eleven precincts with specimens of the class Reptilia, Birds and Mammalia. A positive result for the presence of parasites was observed in 81.8% of them, of which 18.2% were, 9.1% helminths and 54.6% protozoa and helminths simultaneously. The direct and HPJ methods were more specific for the identification of parasites, 72.7 and 63.6%, respectively, while the method of Willis showed less positive results (36.4%). It is concluded that the ideal routine in veterinary laboratory fecal examinations of wild animals is to use the HPJ method associated with the direct method for the detection of protozoa and/or helminths, in order to obtain more accurate results.
RESUMO: As enfermidades parasitárias são comumente encontradas em animais silvestres mantidos em cativeiro, e a pesquisa desses parasitas é uma ferramenta utilizada em ações de manejo de fauna. Uma vez que o método mais utilizado na prática dos laboratórios veterinários é o exame direto, diante disto, considerou-se oportuno relatar o parasitismo em silvestres de cativeiro comparando esta técnica com os métodos de Hoffman, Pons e Janer (HPJ) modificado e de Willis. Foram pesquisadas fezes frescas de onze recintos com espécimes das classes Reptilia, Aves e Mammalia, sendo que 81,8% foram positivas para a presença de parasitas em que 18,2% apresentavam protozoários em suas fezes, 9,1% helmintos e 54,6% protozoários e helmintos simultaneamente. O método direto e de HPJ foram mais específicos para identificação de parasitas, 72,7 e 63,6%, respectivamente, enquanto que o método de Willis apresentou menor positividade (36,4%). Conclui-se que o ideal na rotina laboratorial veterinária para exames coproparasitológicos de animais silvestres é a utilização do método HPJ associado ao método direto para detecção de protozoários e/ou helmintos, visando obter resultados mais precisos. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1590/1808-1657000502016 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>doaj_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1590_1808_1657000502016</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_97e906997b244f17aa2dea8036f40d24</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>oai_doaj_org_article_97e906997b244f17aa2dea8036f40d24</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2416-253b1f47fdb8894329f03da84f9a1c564064ad636f833c90b228b3a979bbd1a33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkE1LAzEQQIMoWKt_wFP-wOrkY7PJUUrVQqEXPYfZZFNTt82yWZT9926tFDwNvBkewyPknsEDKw08Mg26YKqsAKAEDkxdkNkZXpIZTLAQqhTX5Cbn3XRVglYzslmGEB26kaZAO-wxxyG1aTuxlvqI20PKMdN9M3wkn2k80O_YeoqHuMc208-mG47QYTfErziMt-QqTIvm7m_Oyfvz8m3xWqw3L6vF07pwXDJV8FLULMgq-FprIwU3AYRHLYNB5kolQUn0SqighXAGas51LdBUpq49QyHmZHXy-oQ72_XTO_1oE0b7C1K_tdgP0bWNNVVjQBlT1VzKwCpE7hvUMMkleC4nFz-5XJ9y7ptw9jGwx7z2WNL-yyt-ANVTbFA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Efficacy of parasitological diagnosis methods in wild animals kept in captivity</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Carvalho, Aline Feola ; Barnabe, Anderson Sena ; Federsoni, Igor Popovic ; Ferraz, Renato Ribeiro Nogueira ; Marco, Rogerio Milton De ; Garcia, Isabel Priscilla</creator><creatorcontrib>Carvalho, Aline Feola ; Barnabe, Anderson Sena ; Federsoni, Igor Popovic ; Ferraz, Renato Ribeiro Nogueira ; Marco, Rogerio Milton De ; Garcia, Isabel Priscilla</creatorcontrib><description>Parasitic diseases are common in wild animals kept in captivity, and the research of these parasites is a tool used in wildlife management actions. Once the method most used in the practice of veterinary laboratories is the direct examination, it was considered appropriate to report the parasitism in captivity wildlife comparing this technique with modified methods of Hoffman, Pons and Janer (HPJ) and Willis. Fresh feces were surveyed in eleven precincts with specimens of the class Reptilia, Birds and Mammalia. A positive result for the presence of parasites was observed in 81.8% of them, of which 18.2% were, 9.1% helminths and 54.6% protozoa and helminths simultaneously. The direct and HPJ methods were more specific for the identification of parasites, 72.7 and 63.6%, respectively, while the method of Willis showed less positive results (36.4%). It is concluded that the ideal routine in veterinary laboratory fecal examinations of wild animals is to use the HPJ method associated with the direct method for the detection of protozoa and/or helminths, in order to obtain more accurate results.
RESUMO: As enfermidades parasitárias são comumente encontradas em animais silvestres mantidos em cativeiro, e a pesquisa desses parasitas é uma ferramenta utilizada em ações de manejo de fauna. Uma vez que o método mais utilizado na prática dos laboratórios veterinários é o exame direto, diante disto, considerou-se oportuno relatar o parasitismo em silvestres de cativeiro comparando esta técnica com os métodos de Hoffman, Pons e Janer (HPJ) modificado e de Willis. Foram pesquisadas fezes frescas de onze recintos com espécimes das classes Reptilia, Aves e Mammalia, sendo que 81,8% foram positivas para a presença de parasitas em que 18,2% apresentavam protozoários em suas fezes, 9,1% helmintos e 54,6% protozoários e helmintos simultaneamente. O método direto e de HPJ foram mais específicos para identificação de parasitas, 72,7 e 63,6%, respectivamente, enquanto que o método de Willis apresentou menor positividade (36,4%). Conclui-se que o ideal na rotina laboratorial veterinária para exames coproparasitológicos de animais silvestres é a utilização do método HPJ associado ao método direto para detecção de protozoários e/ou helmintos, visando obter resultados mais precisos.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-3653</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1808-1657</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1808-1657</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1590/1808-1657000502016</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Instituto Biológico</publisher><subject>diagnostic methods ; intestinal endoparasites ; wild animals</subject><ispartof>Arquivos do Instituto Biológico (São Paulo), 2018-02, Vol.84</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2416-253b1f47fdb8894329f03da84f9a1c564064ad636f833c90b228b3a979bbd1a33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2416-253b1f47fdb8894329f03da84f9a1c564064ad636f833c90b228b3a979bbd1a33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Carvalho, Aline Feola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barnabe, Anderson Sena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Federsoni, Igor Popovic</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferraz, Renato Ribeiro Nogueira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marco, Rogerio Milton De</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garcia, Isabel Priscilla</creatorcontrib><title>Efficacy of parasitological diagnosis methods in wild animals kept in captivity</title><title>Arquivos do Instituto Biológico (São Paulo)</title><description>Parasitic diseases are common in wild animals kept in captivity, and the research of these parasites is a tool used in wildlife management actions. Once the method most used in the practice of veterinary laboratories is the direct examination, it was considered appropriate to report the parasitism in captivity wildlife comparing this technique with modified methods of Hoffman, Pons and Janer (HPJ) and Willis. Fresh feces were surveyed in eleven precincts with specimens of the class Reptilia, Birds and Mammalia. A positive result for the presence of parasites was observed in 81.8% of them, of which 18.2% were, 9.1% helminths and 54.6% protozoa and helminths simultaneously. The direct and HPJ methods were more specific for the identification of parasites, 72.7 and 63.6%, respectively, while the method of Willis showed less positive results (36.4%). It is concluded that the ideal routine in veterinary laboratory fecal examinations of wild animals is to use the HPJ method associated with the direct method for the detection of protozoa and/or helminths, in order to obtain more accurate results.
RESUMO: As enfermidades parasitárias são comumente encontradas em animais silvestres mantidos em cativeiro, e a pesquisa desses parasitas é uma ferramenta utilizada em ações de manejo de fauna. Uma vez que o método mais utilizado na prática dos laboratórios veterinários é o exame direto, diante disto, considerou-se oportuno relatar o parasitismo em silvestres de cativeiro comparando esta técnica com os métodos de Hoffman, Pons e Janer (HPJ) modificado e de Willis. Foram pesquisadas fezes frescas de onze recintos com espécimes das classes Reptilia, Aves e Mammalia, sendo que 81,8% foram positivas para a presença de parasitas em que 18,2% apresentavam protozoários em suas fezes, 9,1% helmintos e 54,6% protozoários e helmintos simultaneamente. O método direto e de HPJ foram mais específicos para identificação de parasitas, 72,7 e 63,6%, respectivamente, enquanto que o método de Willis apresentou menor positividade (36,4%). Conclui-se que o ideal na rotina laboratorial veterinária para exames coproparasitológicos de animais silvestres é a utilização do método HPJ associado ao método direto para detecção de protozoários e/ou helmintos, visando obter resultados mais precisos.</description><subject>diagnostic methods</subject><subject>intestinal endoparasites</subject><subject>wild animals</subject><issn>0020-3653</issn><issn>1808-1657</issn><issn>1808-1657</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkE1LAzEQQIMoWKt_wFP-wOrkY7PJUUrVQqEXPYfZZFNTt82yWZT9926tFDwNvBkewyPknsEDKw08Mg26YKqsAKAEDkxdkNkZXpIZTLAQqhTX5Cbn3XRVglYzslmGEB26kaZAO-wxxyG1aTuxlvqI20PKMdN9M3wkn2k80O_YeoqHuMc208-mG47QYTfErziMt-QqTIvm7m_Oyfvz8m3xWqw3L6vF07pwXDJV8FLULMgq-FprIwU3AYRHLYNB5kolQUn0SqighXAGas51LdBUpq49QyHmZHXy-oQ72_XTO_1oE0b7C1K_tdgP0bWNNVVjQBlT1VzKwCpE7hvUMMkleC4nFz-5XJ9y7ptw9jGwx7z2WNL-yyt-ANVTbFA</recordid><startdate>20180201</startdate><enddate>20180201</enddate><creator>Carvalho, Aline Feola</creator><creator>Barnabe, Anderson Sena</creator><creator>Federsoni, Igor Popovic</creator><creator>Ferraz, Renato Ribeiro Nogueira</creator><creator>Marco, Rogerio Milton De</creator><creator>Garcia, Isabel Priscilla</creator><general>Instituto Biológico</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180201</creationdate><title>Efficacy of parasitological diagnosis methods in wild animals kept in captivity</title><author>Carvalho, Aline Feola ; Barnabe, Anderson Sena ; Federsoni, Igor Popovic ; Ferraz, Renato Ribeiro Nogueira ; Marco, Rogerio Milton De ; Garcia, Isabel Priscilla</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2416-253b1f47fdb8894329f03da84f9a1c564064ad636f833c90b228b3a979bbd1a33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>diagnostic methods</topic><topic>intestinal endoparasites</topic><topic>wild animals</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Carvalho, Aline Feola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barnabe, Anderson Sena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Federsoni, Igor Popovic</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferraz, Renato Ribeiro Nogueira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marco, Rogerio Milton De</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garcia, Isabel Priscilla</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Arquivos do Instituto Biológico (São Paulo)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Carvalho, Aline Feola</au><au>Barnabe, Anderson Sena</au><au>Federsoni, Igor Popovic</au><au>Ferraz, Renato Ribeiro Nogueira</au><au>Marco, Rogerio Milton De</au><au>Garcia, Isabel Priscilla</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Efficacy of parasitological diagnosis methods in wild animals kept in captivity</atitle><jtitle>Arquivos do Instituto Biológico (São Paulo)</jtitle><date>2018-02-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>84</volume><issn>0020-3653</issn><issn>1808-1657</issn><eissn>1808-1657</eissn><abstract>Parasitic diseases are common in wild animals kept in captivity, and the research of these parasites is a tool used in wildlife management actions. Once the method most used in the practice of veterinary laboratories is the direct examination, it was considered appropriate to report the parasitism in captivity wildlife comparing this technique with modified methods of Hoffman, Pons and Janer (HPJ) and Willis. Fresh feces were surveyed in eleven precincts with specimens of the class Reptilia, Birds and Mammalia. A positive result for the presence of parasites was observed in 81.8% of them, of which 18.2% were, 9.1% helminths and 54.6% protozoa and helminths simultaneously. The direct and HPJ methods were more specific for the identification of parasites, 72.7 and 63.6%, respectively, while the method of Willis showed less positive results (36.4%). It is concluded that the ideal routine in veterinary laboratory fecal examinations of wild animals is to use the HPJ method associated with the direct method for the detection of protozoa and/or helminths, in order to obtain more accurate results.
RESUMO: As enfermidades parasitárias são comumente encontradas em animais silvestres mantidos em cativeiro, e a pesquisa desses parasitas é uma ferramenta utilizada em ações de manejo de fauna. Uma vez que o método mais utilizado na prática dos laboratórios veterinários é o exame direto, diante disto, considerou-se oportuno relatar o parasitismo em silvestres de cativeiro comparando esta técnica com os métodos de Hoffman, Pons e Janer (HPJ) modificado e de Willis. Foram pesquisadas fezes frescas de onze recintos com espécimes das classes Reptilia, Aves e Mammalia, sendo que 81,8% foram positivas para a presença de parasitas em que 18,2% apresentavam protozoários em suas fezes, 9,1% helmintos e 54,6% protozoários e helmintos simultaneamente. O método direto e de HPJ foram mais específicos para identificação de parasitas, 72,7 e 63,6%, respectivamente, enquanto que o método de Willis apresentou menor positividade (36,4%). Conclui-se que o ideal na rotina laboratorial veterinária para exames coproparasitológicos de animais silvestres é a utilização do método HPJ associado ao método direto para detecção de protozoários e/ou helmintos, visando obter resultados mais precisos.</abstract><pub>Instituto Biológico</pub><doi>10.1590/1808-1657000502016</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0020-3653 |
ispartof | Arquivos do Instituto Biológico (São Paulo), 2018-02, Vol.84 |
issn | 0020-3653 1808-1657 1808-1657 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1590_1808_1657000502016 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
subjects | diagnostic methods intestinal endoparasites wild animals |
title | Efficacy of parasitological diagnosis methods in wild animals kept in captivity |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T08%3A09%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-doaj_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Efficacy%20of%20parasitological%20diagnosis%20methods%20in%20wild%20animals%20kept%20in%20captivity&rft.jtitle=Arquivos%20do%20Instituto%20Biolo%CC%81gico%20(Sa%CC%83o%20Paulo)&rft.au=Carvalho,%20Aline%20Feola&rft.date=2018-02-01&rft.volume=84&rft.issn=0020-3653&rft.eissn=1808-1657&rft_id=info:doi/10.1590/1808-1657000502016&rft_dat=%3Cdoaj_cross%3Eoai_doaj_org_article_97e906997b244f17aa2dea8036f40d24%3C/doaj_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_97e906997b244f17aa2dea8036f40d24&rfr_iscdi=true |