Sains Malaysiana 49(5)(2020): 1097-1106

http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/jsm-2020-4905-14

Incidental Findings of Heterakis spumosa and Chirodiscoides caviae with Pinworms in Sprague Dawley Rats

(Penemuan Kebetulan Heterakis spumosa dan Chirodiscoides caviae dengan Cacing Kerawit pada Tikus Sprague Dawley)

RASLAN AIN-FATIN¹, SAULOL HAMID NUR-FAZILA¹*, MD ISA NUR-MAHIZA¹, ABD RAHAMAN YASMIN², FAZIL MUHAMMAD-AZAM¹ & HAMKA NUR-KUAIN¹

¹Department of Veterinary Pathology and Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

²Department of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnostics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Received: 28 March 2019/Accepted: 15 January 2020

ABSTRACT

Endoparasites and ectoparasites have been one of the most common problems influencing the health condition of laboratory animals. The animals have a higher possibility of getting infected and their vague microbial status may alter the results of research studies.  The objective of this study was to identify the presence of helminths and ectoparasites in Sprague Dawley (SD) rats and to determine the association between the type of helminths and ectoparasites infestation in two different conventionally-maintained animal facilities. A total of 60 SD rats were selected randomly. For helminths identification, perianal tape test and faecal floatation were used while ectoparasites were identified by fur pluck test. The data was analysed statistically by SPSS using the Pearson Chi-square test. In this study, pinworms; Syphacia muris and Aspiculuris tetraptera were identified in both Premise 1 and Premise 2. Out of 30 animals of each facility, 26 and 23 rats were found to be positive for helminths at each premise, respectively. Surprisingly, Heterakis spumosa that is commonly found in wild rats were identified at Premise 2. Additionally, 22 out of 30 SD rats at Premise 2 were infested heavily with Chirodiscoides caviae mites which are common in guinea pigs. The high burden of C. caviae infestation was most likely due to cross-contamination during transportation. Statistically, there was an association between the type of helminths and ectoparasites infestation in SD rats at different animal facilities (p-value=0.009). In conclusion, different practise of conventionally-maintained animal facilities influence the evidence of uncommon parasites infestation without affecting the presence of common pinworms in laboratory rats.

Keywords: Chirodiscoides caviae; ectoparasites; helminths; Heterakis spumosa; laboratory rats

ABSTRAK

Endoparasit dan ektoparasit telah menjadi salah satu masalah umum yang mempengaruhi keadaan kesihatan haiwan makmal. Haiwan-haiwan ini mempunyai kemungkinan yang tinggi untuk mendapat jangkitan dan status mikrob mereka yang tidak jelas boleh mengubah hasil kajian penyelidikan. Objektif kajian ini adalah untuk mengenal pasti kehadiran helmint dan ektoparasit pada tikus Sprague-Dawley (SD) dan untuk menentukan hubungan antara jenis helminth dan ektoparasit di dua fasiliti haiwan makmal yang dikendalikan secara konvensional. Sejumlah 60 tikus SD telah dipilih secara rawak. Untuk mengenal pasti helmint, ujian pita perianal dan pengapungan tinja dijalankan sementara ektoparasit dikenal pasti dengan ujian cabutan bulu. Data dianalisis secara statistik oleh SPSS menggunakan ujian Pearson Chi-square. Dalam kajian ini, cacing kerawit; Syphacia muris dan Aspiculuris tetraptera telah dikenal pasti dalam kedua-dua Premis 1 dan Premis 2. Daripada 30 haiwan di setiap kemudahan, 26 dan 23 tikus didapati positif untuk helmint. Yang mengejutkan, Heterakis spumosa yang kebiasaannya dijumpai pada tikus liar dan jarang dilaporkan dalam tikus makmal juga telah dikenal pasti di Premis 2. Selain itu, 22 daripada 30 tikus SD di Premis 2 juga mempunyai infestasi tinggi oleh Chirodiscoides caviae hama yang kebiasaannya dijumpai dalam tikus belanda. Beban tinggi C. caviae berkemungkinan besar disebabkan oleh jangkitan semasa pengangkutan. Secara statistik, terdapat hubungan antara jenis helmint dan serangan ektoparasit pada tikus SD di fasiliti haiwan makmal yang berbeza (p-value = 0.009). Sebagai kesimpulan, pengurusan yang berbeza antara fasiliti haiwan makmal yang dikendalikan secara konvensional akan mempengaruhi serangan parasit yang jarang berlaku tanpa menjejaskan kehadiran cacing kerawit dalam tikus makmal.

Kata kunci: Chirodiscoides caviae; ektoparasit; helmint; Heterakis spumosa; tikus makmal

REFERENCES

Andersen, M.L., D'Almeida, V., Ko, G.M., Martins, P.J.F. & Tufik, S. 2015. The health of laboratory animals. In Rodent Model as Tools in Ethical Biomedical Research, edited by Andersen, M.L. & Tufik S. Switzerland: Springer Nature Publishing. pp. 53-60.

Baker, D.G. 2007. Parasites of rats and mice. In Flynn's Parasites of Laboratory Animals. 2nd ed. Ames (IA): Blackwell Publishing. pp. 1-13.

Baker, H.J., Lindsey, J.R. & Weisbroth, S.H. 1979. Housing to control research variables. In The Laboratory Rat, edited by Baker, H.J., Lindsey, J.R. & Weisbroth, S.H. Toronto, Ontario: Academic Press. pp. 169-192.

Ballweber, L.R. & Harkness, J.E. 2007. Parasites of guinea pigs. In Flynn's Parasites of Laboratory Animals, edited by Baker, D.G. 2nd ed. Ames (IA): Blackwell Publishing. pp. 1-13.

Besch-williford, C. & Franklin, C. 2007. Clinical parasitology of laboratory rodents &     rabbits. Presented at the 2007 FELASA - ICLAS meeting. pp. 8-12.

Bicalho, K.A., Araújo, F.T.M., Rocha, R.S. & Carvalho, O.S. 2007. Sanitary profile in mice and rat colonies in laboratory animal houses in Minas Gerais: I - endo and ecto-parasites. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia 59(6): 1478-1484. 

Brayton, A.R. & Brain, P.F. 1974. Proceedings: Studies on the effects of differential housing on some measures of disease resistance in male and female laboratory mice. The Journal of Endocrinology 61(2): 48-49.

Cafiero, M.A., Raele, D.A., Mancini, G. & Galante, D. 2016. Dermatitis by tropical rat mite, Ornithonyssus bacoti (M. esostigmata, M. acronyssidae) in Italian city‐dwellers: A diagnostic challenge. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 30(7): 1231-1233.

Canadian Council on Animal Care. 1984. In Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals - Volume 2. Canadian Council on Animal Care, Ottawa Ont. pp. 1-31. https://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Guidelines/Vol2/rats.pdf.

Canzian, F. 1997. Phylogenetics of the laboratory rat Rattus norvegicus. Genome Research 7(3): 262-267.

Carty, A.J. 2008. Opportunistic infections of mice and rats: Jacoby and Lindsey revisited. ILAR Journal 49(3): 272-276.

D'Silva, J. 1982. The transmission of Syphacia muris (nematoda; oxyuroiuea) in the laboratory rat. Doctor of Philosophy Theses. University of London (Unpublished).

Eaton, G.J. 1972. Intestinal helminths in inbred strains of mice. Laboratory Animal Science 22(6): 850-853.

Griffiths, H.J. 1971. Some common parasites of small laboratory animals. Laboratory Animals 5(1): 123-135.

Goodroe, A.E., Baxter, V.K. & Watson, J. 2016. Guidance regarding sample collection and refinement of fecal flotation exam for the isolation of Aspiculuris tetraptera. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 55(5): 541-547.

Hessler, J. & Lehner, N. 2011. Introduction. In Planning and Designing Research Animal Facilities, edited by Hessler, J. & Lehner, N. Massachusetts: Academic Press. pp. 3-5.

Iannaccone, P.M. & Jacob, H.J. 2009. Rats!. Disease Models & Mechanisms 2(6): 206-210.

Nicklas, W. 2004. Infections in laboratory animals: Importance and control. In The Welfare of Laboratory Animals, edited by Kaliste, E. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 23-35.

Nicklas, W., Baneux, P., Boot, R., Decelle, T., Deeny, A.A., Fumanelli, M. & Illgen-Wilcke, B. 2002. F.E.L.A.S.A. Recommendations for the health monitoring of rodent and rabbit colonies in breeding and experimental units. Laboratory Animals 36(1): 20-42.

Otto, G. & Franklin, C.L. 2005. Medical management and diagnostic approaches. In The Laboratory Rat, edited by Suckow, M.A., Weisbroth, S.H. & Franklin C.L. Elsevier Academic Press. pp. 548-563.

Owen, G.D. 1992. Parasites of laboratory animals. In Laboratory Animal Handbooks No. 12. SAGE Publications Ltd. pp. 30-35.

Peterson, P.K., Chao, C.C., Molitor, T., Murtaugh, M., Strgar, F. & Sharp, B.M. 1991. Stress and pathogenesis of infectious disease. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 13(4): 710-720.

Plachý, V., Litvinec, A., Langrová, I., Horáková, B., Sloup, V., Jankovská, I. & Borkovcová, M. 2016. The effect of Syphacia muris on nutrient digestibility in laboratory rats. Laboratory Animals 50(1): 39-44.

Pritchett, K.R. 2007. Helminth parasites of laboratory mice. In The Mouse in Biomedical Research. Massachusetts: Academic Press. pp. 551-564.

Sundar, S.B., Harikrishnan, T.J., Latha, B.R., Gomathinayagam, S., Srinivasan, M.R. & Ramesh, S. 2017. Incidence of fur mite infestation in laboratory rodents. Journal of Parasitic Diseases 41(2): 383-386.

Vessey, S.H. 1964. Effects of grouping on levels of circulating antibodies in mice. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 115(1): 252-255.

Wagner, M. 1988. The effect of infection with the pinworm (Syphacia muris) on rat growth. Laboratory Animal Science 38(4): 476-478.

*Corresponding author; email: nurfazila@upm.edu.my