Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:07:31.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Description of the two strains of turkey coccidia Eimeria adenoeides with remarkable morphological variability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2011

MARTIN POPLSTEIN  and
VLADIMIR VRBA
MARTIN POPLSTEIN
Affiliation:
BIOPHARM, Research Institute of Biopharmacy and Veterinary Drugs, a.s., Pohori-Chotoun, Jilove u Prahy 254 49, Czech Republic
VLADIMIR VRBA*
Affiliation:
BIOPHARM, Research Institute of Biopharmacy and Veterinary Drugs, a.s., Pohori-Chotoun, Jilove u Prahy 254 49, Czech Republic
*
*Corresponding author: Tel: +420 261395233. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Although oocyst morphology was always considered as a reliable parameter for coccidian species discrimination we describe strain variation of turkey coccidia, Eimeria adenoeides, which remarkably exceeds the variation observed in any other Eimeria species. Two strains have been isolated – the first strain maintains the typical oocyst morphology attributed to this species – large and ellipsoidal – while the second strain has small and ovoid oocysts, never described before for this species. Other biological parameters including pathogenicity were found to be similar. Cross-protection between these 2 strains in 2 immunization and challenge experiments was confirmed. Sequencing and analysis of 18S and ITS1 ribosomal DNA revealed a close relationship according to 18S and a relatively distant relationship according to ITS1. Analysis of 18S and ITS1 sequences from commercial turkey coccidiosis vaccines Immucox®-T and Coccivac®-T revealed that each vaccine contains a different strain of E. adenoeides and that these strains have 18S and ITS1 sequences homologous to the sequences of the strains we have isolated and described. These findings show that diagnostics of turkey coccidia according to oocyst morphology have to be carried out with caution or abolished entirely. Novel PCR-based molecular tools will be necessary for fast and reliable species discrimination.

Keywords

Eimeria adenoeidescoccidiosismorphology
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 138 , Issue 10 , September 2011 , pp. 1211 - 1216
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barta, J. R., Martin, D. S., Liberator, P. A., Dashkevicz, M., Anderson, J. W., Feighner, S. D., Elbrecht, A., Perkins-Barrow, A., Jenkins, M. C. and Danforth, H. D. (1997). Phylogenetic relationships among eight Eimeria species infecting domestic fowl inferred using complete small subunit ribosomal DNA sequences. The Journal of Parasitology 83, 262–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cantacessi, C., Riddell, S., Morris, G. M., Doran, T., Woods, W. G., Otranto, D. and Gasser, R. B. (2008). Genetic characterization of three unique operational taxonomic units of Eimeria from chickens in Australia based on nuclear spacer ribosomal DNA. Veterinary Parasitology 152, 226–234. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.12.028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, H. D. (2008). Coccidiosis in the turkey. Avian Pathology 37, 205–223. doi: 10.1080/03079450802050689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarkson, M. J. (1958). Life history and pathogenicity of Eimeria adenoeides Moore & Brown, 1951, in the turkey poult. Parasitology 48, 70–88. doi: 10.1017/S0031182000021065.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarkson, M. J. (1959). The life history and pathogenicity of Eimeria meleagrimitis Tyzzer 1929, in the turkey poult. Parasitology 49, 70–82. doi: 10.1017/S0031182000026718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarkson, M. J. (1960). The coccidia of the turkey. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 54, 253–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, S. M., Higuchi, D., McGowan, A., Schrader, J., Withanage, G. S. and Francis, M. (2010). Polymerase chain reaction-based identity assay for pathogenic turkey Eimeria. Avian Diseases 54, 1152–1156. doi: 10.1637/9271-020310-Reg.1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, T. (2005). BioEdit Sequence Alignment Editor for Windows 95/98/NT/XP, version 7.0.5. Available at: http://www.mbio.ncsu.edu/bioedit/bioedit.htmlGoogle Scholar
Hein, H. (1969). Eimeria adenoeides and E. meleagrimitis: pathogenic effect in turkey poults. Experimental Parasitology 24, 163–170. doi: 10.1016/0014-4894(69)90153-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inoue, H., Nojima, H. and Okayama, H. (1990). High efficiency transformation of Escherichia coli with plasmids. Gene 96, 23–28. doi: 10.1016/0378-1119(90)90336-P.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larkin, M. A., Blackshields, G., Brown, N. P., Chenna, R., McGettigan, P. A., McWilliam, H., Valentin, F., Wallace, I. M., Wilm, A., Lopez, R., Thompson, J. D., Gibson, T. J. and Higgins, D. G. (2007). Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics 23, 2947–2948. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lew, A. E., Anderson, G. R., Minchin, C. M., Jeston, P. J. and Jorgensen, W. K. (2003). Inter- and intra-strain variation and PCR detection of the internal transcribed spacer 1 (ITS-1) sequences of Australian isolates of Eimeria species from chickens. Veterinary Parasitology 112, 33–50. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4017(02)00393-X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, P. L., Millard, B. J., Joyner, L. P. and Norton, C. C. (1976). A guide to laboratory techniques used in the study and diagnosis of avian coccidiosis. Folia Veterinaria Latina 6, 201–217.Google Scholar
Long, P. L., Millard, B. J. and Shirley, M. W. (1977). Strain variations within Eimeria meleagrimitis from the turkey. Parasitology 75, 177–182. doi: 10.1017/S0031182000062314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, E. N. and Brown, J. A. (1951). A new coccidium pathogenic for turkeys, Eimeria adenoeides N. SP. (Protozoa: Eimeriidae). The Cornell Veterinarian 41, 124–135.Google Scholar
Schwarz, R. S., Jenkins, M. C., Klopp, S. and Miska, K. B. (2009). Genomic analysis of Eimeria spp. populations in relation to performance levels of broiler chicken farms in Arkansas and North Carolina. The Journal of Parasitology 95, 871–880. doi: 10.1645/GE-1898.1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed