Abstract
Three methods, FLOTAC, FECPAK and McMaster were compared for accuracy and sensitivity for counting numbers of nematode eggs in faeces of naturally infected cattle with high or low nematode egg counts. Only FLOTAC gave positive results for 12 replicates from pooled samples with low egg counts making it more sensitive than FECPAK (67%) and McMaster (41.7%). FLOTAC resulted in generally higher egg counts and lower coefficients of variation than the other two methods used. The reliability of FECPAK and McMaster is depended on the area under the slide counted. All three methods can be used for making decisions whether to treat but FLOTAC or Mini-FLOTAC should be used for faecal egg count reduction tests when lower egg counts are present.
[1] Coles G.C., Bauer C., Borgsteede F.H., Geerts S., Klei T.R., Taylor M.A., Waller P.J. 1992. World association for the advancement of veterinary parasitology (W.A.A.V.P.) methods for the detection of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance. Veterinary Parasitology, 44, 35–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-4017(92)90141-U10.1016/0304-4017(92)90141-USearch in Google Scholar
[2] Cox D.D., Todd A.C. 1962. Survey of gastrointestinal parasitism in Wisconsin dairy cattle. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 141, 706–709. Search in Google Scholar
[3] Cringoli G., Rinaldi L., Veneziano V., Capelli G., Scala A. 2004. The influence of flotation solution, sample dilution and the choice of McMaster slide area (volume) on the reliability of the Mc-Master technique in estimating the faecal egg counts of gastrointestinal strongyles and Dicrocoelium dendriticum in sheep. Veterinary Parasitology, 123, 121–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2004.05.02110.1016/j.vetpar.2004.05.021Search in Google Scholar
[4] Cringoli G., Rinaldi L., Maurelli M.P., Utzinger J. 2010. FLOTAC: new multivalent techniques for qualitative and quantitative copromicroscopici diagnosis of parasites in animals and humans. Nature Protocols, 5, 503–551. DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2009.235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2009.23510.1038/nprot.2009.235Search in Google Scholar
[5] Cringoli G., Rinaldi L., Albonico M., Bergquist R., Utzinger J. 2103. Geospatial(s) tools: integration of advanced epidemiological sampling and novel diagnostics. Geospatial Health, 7, 399–404. Search in Google Scholar
[6] Egwang T.G., Slocombe J.O. 1982. Evaluation of the Cornell-Wisconsin centrifugal flotation technique for recoverins trichostrongylid eggs from bovine feces. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine, 46, 133–137. Search in Google Scholar
[7] Gordon H., Whitlock H.V. 1939. A new technique for counting nematode eggs in sheep faeces. Journal Council Scientific Industrial Research, 12, 50–52. Search in Google Scholar
[8] Levecke B., Rinaldi L., Charlier J., Maurelli M.P., Bosco A., Vercruysse J., Cringoli G. 2012. The bias, accuracy and precision of faecal egg count reduction test results in cattle using McMaster, Cornell-Wisconsin and FLOTAC egg counting methods. Veterinary Parasitology, 188, 194–199. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.03.017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.03.01710.1016/j.vetpar.2012.03.017Search in Google Scholar
[9] Levecke B., Rinaldi L., Charlier J., Maurelli M.P., Morgoglione M.E., Vercruysse, J., Cringoli G. 2011. Monitoring drug efficacy against gastrointestinal nematodes when faecal egg counts are low: do the analytic sensitivity and the formula matter? Parasitology Research, 109, 953–957. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-011-2338-z http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00436-011-2338-z10.1007/s00436-011-2338-zSearch in Google Scholar
[10] MAFF, 1986. Manual of Veterinary Parasitological Techniques, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London (1986) 160 pp. Search in Google Scholar
[11] Mes T.H.M. 2003. Technical variability and required sample size of helminth egg isolation procedures. Veterinary Parasitology, 115, 311–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4017(03)00219-X10.1016/S0304-4017(03)00219-XSearch in Google Scholar
[12] Presland S.L., Morgan E.R., Coles G.C. 2005. Counting nematode eggs in equine faecal samples. Veterinary Record, 156, 208–210. Search in Google Scholar
[13] Sutherland I.A., Leathwick D.M. 2011. Anthelmintic resistance in nematode parasites of cattle: global issue? Trends in Parasitology, 27, 176–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2010.11.00810.1016/j.pt.2010.11.008Search in Google Scholar PubMed
© 2014 W. Stefański Institute of Parasitology, PAS
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.