A comparison of two methods for quantifying parasitic nematode fecundity

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorAustin, Lauren V.en
dc.contributor.authorBudischak, Sarah A.en
dc.contributor.authorRamadhin, Jessicaen
dc.contributor.authorHoberg, Eric P.en
dc.contributor.authorAbrams, Arten
dc.contributor.authorJolles, Anna E.en
dc.contributor.authorEzenwa, Vanessa O.en
dc.contributor.departmentFish and Wildlife Conservationen
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-24T13:09:48Zen
dc.date.available2020-03-24T13:09:48Zen
dc.date.issued2017-05en
dc.description.abstractAccurate measures of nematode fecundity can provide important information for investigating parasite life history evolution, transmission potential, and effects on host health. Understanding differences among fecundity assessment protocols and standardizing methods, where possible, will enable comparisons across different studies and host and parasite species and systems. Using the trichostrongyle nematode Cooperia fuelleborni isolated from wild African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), we compared egg recovery and enumeration between two methods for measuring the fecundity of female worms. The first method, in utero egg count, involves visual enumeration of the eggs via microscopic inspection of the uterine system. The second method, ex utero egg count, involves dissolving the same specimens from above in a sodium chloride solution to release the eggs from the female's uterus, then enumeration under an inverted microscope. On average, the ex utero method resulted in 34% more eggs than the in utero method. However, results indicate that the two methods used to quantify parasitic nematode fecundity are highly correlated. Thus, while both methods are viable options for estimating relative nematode fecundity, we recommend caution in undertaking comparative studies that utilize egg count data collected using different methods.en
dc.description.adminPublic domain – authored by a U.S. government employeeen
dc.description.notesMany thanks to South Africa National Parks Veterinary Services for assistance with the animal capture operations. We thank R. Spaan, J. Spaan, A. Majewska, J. Alagappan, C. Becker, B. Beechler, E. Belinfante, E. Gorsich, C. Gondhalekar, C. Hebbale, T. Lavelle, L. Leathers, L. Megow, T. Mowla, A. Petrelli, K. Raum, N. Rogers, K. Sakamoto, P. Snyder, and M. Smith for invaluable assistance in the field and in the lab. All animal protocols were approved by the UGA Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (AUP#: A2013 08-017-Y1-A0; AUP#: A2010 10-190-Y3-A5). This work was funded by the National Science Foundation Ecology of Infectious Diseases Grant to VOE and AEJ (DEB-1102493, EF-0723928). LVA was supported by a Georgia Museum of Natural History's Joshua Laerm Academic Support Award for Undergraduate Research and an NSF REU supplement to DEB-1102493; JR was supported by the NSF Population of Infectious Diseases REU Program at the University of Georgia (DBI-1156707).en
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Science Foundation Ecology of Infectious Diseases Grant [DEB-1102493, EF-0723928]; Georgia Museum of Natural History's Joshua Laerm Academic Support Award for Undergraduate Research; NSFNational Science Foundation (NSF) [DEB-1102493]; NSF Population of Infectious Diseases REU Program at the University of Georgia [DBI-1156707]en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-017-5436-8en
dc.identifier.eissn1432-1955en
dc.identifier.issn0932-0113en
dc.identifier.issue5en
dc.identifier.pmid28357577en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/97448en
dc.identifier.volume116en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rightsCreative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/en
dc.subjectFecal egg counten
dc.subjectHelminth fecundityen
dc.subjectCooperia fuellebornien
dc.subjectTrichostrongyle nematodeen
dc.titleA comparison of two methods for quantifying parasitic nematode fecundityen
dc.title.serialParasitology Researchen
dc.typeArticle - Refereeden
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten
dc.type.dcmitypeStillImageen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Austin2017_Article_AComparisonOfTwoMethodsForQuan.pdf
Size:
422.48 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download

Collections

Scholarly Works, Fish and Wildlife Conservation