Next Article in Journal
Correction: Yin et al. Molecular Detection of Babesia gibsoni in Cats in China. Animals 2022, 12, 3066
Next Article in Special Issue
Comparative Metabolome Analyses of Ivermectin-Resistant and -Susceptible Strains of Haemonchus contortus
Previous Article in Journal
Phytase Supplementation under Commercially Intensive Rearing Conditions: Impacts on Nile Tilapia Growth Performance and Nutrient Digestibility
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 1
10.3390/ani13010137
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Retrospective Survey of Dog and Cat Endoparasites in Ireland: Antigen Detection

by
Theo de Waal
1,*,
Sandra Aungier
1,
Amanda Lawlor
1,
Troy Goddu
2,
Matthew Jones
3 and
Donald Szlosek
2
1
School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, D04 W6F6 Dublin, Ireland
2
IDEXX Laboratories Inc., Westbrook, ME 04092, USA
3
IDEXX Laboratories Ltd., Wetherby LS22 7DN, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2023, 13(1), 137; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13010137
Submission received: 28 November 2022 / Revised: 14 December 2022 / Accepted: 28 December 2022 / Published: 29 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in the Diagnosis of Parasitic Infections in Animals)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Untreated and stray dogs and cats, in particular, play an important role in contaminating the environment with important zoonotic parasites. Archive faecal samples collected between 2016–2019 from dogs (n = 789) and cats (n = 241) were examined using the IDEXX Fecal DxTM and SNAPTM Giardia antigen assays for the detection of Toxocara, hookworms, Trichuris and Giardia infections. Giardia duodenalis was the most common parasite (26%) detected in the dogs, followed by ascarids (17.6%) and hookworms (5.3%). Trichuris vulpis was only detected in 1 dog. Ascarids (23.2%) was the most common parasite detected in the cats, followed by Giardia (12.9%) and hookworms (2.9%). This study shows a high prevalence of parasite infection in untreated and stray dogs and cats in the greater Dublin area in Ireland. Since they live in synanthropic conditions and can roam over vast distances, they can contaminate public areas and pose a risk to both humans and owned pets that utilise these spaces. It is therefore important to raise public awareness and increase the knowledge on zoonotic parasites.

Abstract

Endoparasites of dogs and cats, play an important role in both veterinary medicine and public health. Untreated and stray dogs and cats, in particular, play an important role in contaminating the environment with important zoonotic parasites. Thus, the aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of intestinal parasites in stray dogs and cats using highly sensitive and specific copro-antigen tests. Archive faecal samples from previous surveys conducted between 2016–2019 from dogs (n = 789) and cats (n = 241) were included in this study. The IDEXX Fecal Dx™ antigen panel was used for the detection of Toxocara, hookworms, Trichuris and the SNAP™ Giardia antigen assay was used for the detection of Giardia infection. Giardia duodenalis was the most common parasite (26%, n = 205) detected in the dogs, followed by ascarids (17.6%, n = 139) and hookworms (5.3%, n = 42). Trichuris vulpis was only detected in 1 dog. Ascarids (23.2%, n = 56) was the most common parasite detected in the cats, followed by Giardia (12.9%, n = 31) and hookworms (n = 7, 2.9%). No whipworms were detected in cats. Overall, there was little difference in the positivity between sexes in both dogs and cats. However, in terms of age, adolescent dogs (<3 years) and kittens (<1 year) had the highest parasite prevalence overall, with G. duodenalis and ascarids being the most prevalent. This study shows a high prevalence of parasite infection in untreated and stray dogs and cats in the greater Dublin area in Ireland. Since they live in synanthropic conditions and can roam over vast distances they can contaminate public areas and pose a risk to both humans and owned pets that utilise these spaces. It is therefore important to raise public awareness and increase the knowledge on zoonotic parasites.

1. Introduction

Dogs and cats are host to a number of gastrointestinal parasites. Apart from the direct disease impact on the infected animal, some of them are also of zoonotic importance [1,2]. In 2020, the population of pet cats in Europe was over 110 million and dogs over 90 million (https://www.statista.com/statistics/453880/pet-population-europe-by-animal/ (accessed on 28 November 2022)). In 2019, about one in five households in Europe owned at least one pet dog and there is a general increase in the number of pets over the last decade. In Ireland 25% of households owned at least one pet dog and 17% at least one pet cat. Pet ownership in Ireland appears to have increased over the last decade (https://www.statista.com/statistics/517020/households-owning-cats-dogs-europe-ireland/ (accessed 28 November 2022)); dogs: 425,000–455,000; cats: 310,000–325,000, from 2010 to 2020. The increase in owned dog/cat populations has also led to an increase in stray dog and cat populations as well as the continual issue of animal faecal material in public places. There are several campaigns to create awareness and the potential health implication (https://www.dogstrust.ie/whats-happening/news/the-big-scoop-2020; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/health/toxocara-children-new-york-playgrounds.html (accessed on 28 November 2022)). The number of stray dogs in Ireland is estimated to be 2640, per million people (https://www.petethevet.com/the-stray-dog-issue-overseas-and-in-ireland-podcast-from-pete-the-vet-on-newstalks-pat-kenny-show/ (accessed on 28 November 2022)). According to the International Companion Animal Management Coalition (ICAM) (https://www.icam-coalition.org/download/humane-dog-population-management-guidance/ (accessed on 28 November 2022)), members of the public and government authorities are concerned about public health and safety issues associated with stray animals.
Two important zoonotic gastrointestinal nematodes of dogs and cats are Toxocara canis and T. cati, respectively. Humans may become infected with these parasites, where the larvae migrate and encyst in tissues and organs, surviving for months or sometimes even years. Although the vast majority of human Toxocara infections are asymptomatic [3], infection in humans may cause several clinical syndromes described as visceral larva migrans (VLM), ocular larva migrans (OLM), covert toxocarosis and neural larva migrans (NLM) [4,5,6]. Humans mainly become infected through the ingestion of embryonated eggs and therefore public parks and playground sandpits contaminated with dog or cat faeces play a crucial role in the perpetuation of this infection. In Europe high levels of environmental contamination with Toxocara spp. have been reported [7,8,9,10,11]. A study in Portugal found 85.7% of sandpits and 50% of parks examined were contaminated with Toxocara spp. eggs, while 85.5% of the sandpits and 34.4% of the parks were contaminated with Toxocara cati eggs [11]. The high prevalence in sandpits is in agreement with other studies [12], whereas T. canis is mostly found in soil in public parks. In a recent survey of parks in the greater Dublin area, Ireland, 5/8 (63%) parks were positive for Toxocara spp. eggs, with the prevalence of soil contamination ranging between 0 and 13.7% (Keegan 2022, unpublished data).
Another potential zoonotic parasite is Giardia duodenalis, which is widely distributed and can infect multiple hosts, including dogs, cats and humans. Some studies have shown that the risk of gastrointestinal parasitism in dogs (including G. duodenalis) may increase with park use in urban areas [13] suggesting that recreational behaviours in parks and certain demographics are risk factors for parasitism in pet dogs. Recent studies in Europe [14,15,16,17,18] indicate the prevalence of G. duodenalis ranging between 20% and 57% in dogs. Fewer studies have been done in cats, a recent meta-analysis found that 2.3% of cats tested positive for G. duodenalis, globally. European studies have found prevalence rates ranging from 5.9% to 20.5% in cats [19,20].
Recent molecular studies on G. duodenalis have shown it to be a multispecies complex consisting of eight distinct genotypes (assemblages), some of which are host specific, while others are regarded as potentially zoonotic [21,22,23]. There is epidemiological and molecular evidence that supports the zoonotic transmission of G. duodenalis among humans and dogs living in the same community showing a highly significant association between the prevalence of G. duodenalis in humans and presence of a Giardia-positive dog in the same household (odds ratio 3.01, 95% CI, 1.11, 8.39, p < 0.001) [24,25]. Giardia is a notifiable disease in humans in Ireland and recent data (https://www.hpsc.ie/abouthpsc/annualreports/ (accessed on 28 November 2022)) indicated a crude incidence rate (CIR) of 5.7 per 100,000 population in 2018 which is an increase of 13% in the CIR compared to 2017. Overall, there has been a noticeable increasing trend in the number of notifications reported over the last five years (145 in 2015 to 252 in 2019). Infections are thought to be mostly water-borne but specific molecular typing was not performed so it is not possible to say if any of these infections were from zoonotic genotypes (assemblages).
In conventional parasitology, parasitic elements are detected using a variety of flotation techniques [26]. In many parasitic infections and in ascarids such as Toxocara, in particular, a negative correlation has been found between number of eggs detected and the number of adult worms in the host [27]. These techniques have limited sensitivity and are influenced by a number of factors such as the variations in the number of eggs/cysts produced by the different parasites at different stages of its life cycle, the adequacy of the sample (e.g., sample size, freshness, lack of contamination with free-living organisms), the flotation technique (e.g., passive flotation, double centrifugation), the flotation solution and the experience of the person reading the slide to correctly identify the parasite.
For this reason, recent research has focused on alternative, more sensitive, methods to detect parasite infection in dogs and cats. Molecular or immunological methods to detect helminth stages or their antigens are alternative assays that can be both specific and sensitive to diagnose infections [28]. Immunological assays that detect specific parasite antigens (secreted/excreted (ES) proteins) released in the host faeces (coproantigens) are important tools for screening and surveillance programmes. The detection of ES proteins is advantageous because these antigens are present throughout the life cycle of the parasite, including late in the prepatent period when eggs are not yet produced. Detection of antigen requires a much smaller amount of faecal material and therefore may not be negatively impacted, as are flotation assays, by small sample amounts. The detection of coproantigens of protozoal infections of Giardia and Cryptosporidium, has been routinely used in veterinary medicine for many years [29,30]. More recently three coproantigen ELISA have recently been developed and validated for dog and cat nematodes; Trichuris vulpis [31], Ancylostoma caninum, Toxocara canis and T. cati [32]. These tests have been validated in both naturally and experimentally infected animals and have been shown to have a high sensitivity and specificity [31,32] with coproantigen of A. caninum detected 2 weeks before the patency period or in the case of T. vulpis approximately 6.5 weeks before the patency period [31,32]. In the case of T. canis antigens were detected in 4 out of 5 dogs, 1 week prior to egg shedding. In some cases, the ELISA results closely mimicked the faecal egg counts after anthelmintic treatment. However, in others the coproantigen levels rose again a short time after treatment, which may suggest the establishment of infections from somatic larval stages It has also been shown that these tests are able to detect Ancylostoma tubaeforme and T. cati in cats [32,33].
The aim of this study was to assess parasite prevalence in stray dogs and cats in the greater Dublin area, Ireland using the more sensitive coproantigen ELISA.

2. Materials and Methods

A total of 1030 archive faecal samples from dogs (n = 789) and cats (n = 241) from previous surveys in Ireland, between 2016–2019, were used in this study. The samples were collected from unowned dogs and cats from animal shelters and were sampled when animals entered the shelter, before routine anthelmintic treatment. Where possible, the breed, age and sex of the animals sampled were recorded as well as faecal consistency (diarrhoeic [watery, no texture], loose [moist, some texture, leaves residue when manipulated] or formed [hard, dry, firm and holds form when manipulated]). From each sample originally submitted, approximately 1 g of faeces was transferred to an Eppendorf tube and stored at −20 °C. These archived samples were then used in the coproantigen assay to detect ascarids, hookworms and whipworms using the commercial Fecal Dx™ antigen assay (IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., Westbrook, ME, USA). In addition, Giardia antigen was also detected in the samples using the SNAP™ Giardia test (IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., Westbrook, ME, USA). All the coproantigen assays were performed at IDEXX laboratories in Wetherby, UK according to the manufacturer’s protocol.

Statistical Analysis

Categorical variables were presented as percent and frequency. Canine life stages were defined as follows: Adolescent (<3 years), Adult (>=3 years and <7 years), Senior (>=7 years and <11 years), Geriatric (>=11 years). For felines, life stages were defined as follows: Adolescent (<1 years), Adult (>=1 years and <8 years), Senior (>=8 years and <13 years), Geriatric (>=13 years). Faecal consistency was categorised in three ordered levels, Formed, Loose or Diarrhoea, when information was available. Statistical analysis was done using R version 4.0.2.

3. Results

3.1. Dogs

Of the 789 dog samples analysed 37.5% were female, 53.2% were male and 14.1% were unknown. The most common dog breed was mixed/other (54.4%, n = 429), followed by Jack Russel Terrier (11.9%, n = 94), Terrier (7.4%, n = 58), and Collie (2.7%, n = 21). The majority (50.4%, n = 398) of dogs were <3 years of age, the age profile of the dogs is summarised in Table 1.
G. duodenalis was the most common parasite (26%, n = 205) detected in the dogs, while Trichuris vulpis was only detected in 1 dog. The prevalence of infection of the different pathogens detected are summarised in Figure 1.
The prevalence of the different parasites detected in the different life stages is given in Table 2.
There was no significant differences in overall positivity between the sexes. However, when looking at the individual parasites it appears to be multidirectional with G. duodenalis and ascarids being more prevalent in male than female dogs. Adolescent dogs were observed to have the highest parasite burden (Table 2) overall, with G. duodenalis and ascarids being the most prevalent. Interestingly, whipworms were only detected in an adolescent dog, with G. duodenalis being the most prevalent pathogen detected in all age groups.
The faecal consistency of the majority of samples analysed was formed faeces (81.4%, n = 642) and no diarrhoeic samples was analysed. There was no clear relationship between faecal consistency and parasite infection (Figure 2).

3.2. Cats

Of the 241 cat samples analysed 46.5% were female, 42.3% male and 11.2% were unknown. The majority (25.7%, n = 62) of the cats were <1 year of age, and the age profile of the cats is summarised in Table 3.
Ascarids were the most common parasite (23.2%, n = 56) detected in the cats, while no whipworms were detected in any of the samples. Overall, the prevalence of infection of the different pathogens detected is summarised in Figure 3.
The prevalence of the different parasites detected in the different life stages is given in Table 4.
As was the case with dogs there was little difference in overall positivity between the sexes. However, when looking at the individual parasites, more male cats (19.4%) were positive for G. duodenalis than female cats (6.2%) and ascarid infection was similar (23%) between male and female cats.
Adolescent cats were observed to have the highest parasite burden (Table 4) overall, with G. duodenalis and hookworms being the most prevalent. Interestingly, no whipworms were detected in any of the samples, with hookworms being the most prevalent pathogen detected in all age groups.
The faecal consistency of the majority of samples analysed was from formed faeces (94.2%, n = 227) and only 3 (1.2%) of the samples were classified as diarrhoeic. G. duodenalis was mostly found in diarrhoeic samples while ascarid and hookworms were only found in formed faecal samples (Figure 4).

4. Discussion

Endoparasites were frequently found in stray dog and cat samples in this study, with 49% of dogs and 39% of cats harbouring one or more parasite infections. This is in agreement with a recent study in Dublin, Ireland that 30% of stray dogs and 41% of stray cats were harbouring at least one parasite infection [34]. In fact, similar findings have been found worldwide [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50].
In the present study, there was little difference in the positivity between the sexes in both dogs and cats. However, in terms of age, adolescent dogs and cats had the highest parasite prevalence overall, with G. duodenalis and ascarids being the most prevalent (Table 2 and Table 4). This again underlies the findings of previous studies that a free-living lifestyle and a young age are major risk factors for endoparasite infections [48,51]. The result from the present survey also highlights the fact that stray dogs and cats frequently harbour zoonotic parasites that are of key veterinary and public health concerns in line with other surveys [52]. None of the cats and only 1 dog tested positive on the coproantigen test for Trichuris spp. Most recent studies on the prevalence in cats in North America, Europe and Australia have shown a very low prevalence [53] with the exception of St Kitts where the prevalence of infections among non-owned/feral cats was 71% [54]. However, the low prevalence in dogs is surprising since T. vulpis eggs are known to survive for long periods in the environment especially in temperate climates [55] where it is a constant source of infection and often leads to high infection rates in dogs. Reports from Canada, Belgium and Holland [56,57,58] have found that T. vulpis is the second most common helminth. Older dogs tend to be more commonly infected with T. vulpis [59], but interestingly in this study the positive dog was a young dog (<3 years of age). A survey in Poland found 8.4% of dogs were infected with T. vulpis [50]. In Hungary 13–48% and Italy 10–18% of dogs were infected with T. vulpis [50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61]. The zoonotic importance of T. vulpis is still controversial, as there are only a few case reports in humans [55,62] but diagnosis was only based on egg measurement.
Giardia was the most frequent intestinal parasite found in dogs (26%) in this study. Similar prevalence was also recorded in many other studies, for example 24.8% of dogs in a large study in Europe was positive for G. duodenalis [63], 22.7% in Belgium [64] and 21.0% in the UK [16]. A few surveys recorded a much higher prevalence, with 59% of dogs in Hungary [65], 55% in Italy [66] and 63% in Spain [67] infected with G. duodenalis. In cats, G. duodenalis was the second most frequent intestinal parasite found (13%) which is considerably lower than that found in a multi-county study in Europe where the infection rates in cats were 20.3% [63] but in line with the pooled prevalence (12%) calculated in a worldwide meta-analysis [20]. Differences in the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic assays to detect G. duodenalis infection may contribute to the large differences in Giardia prevalence. It has also been suggested that the risk of G. duodenalis infection is increased with the increased frequency of anthelmintic administration vacating a niche in the intestine by the removal of other parasites [68]. However, it is unlikely to have played a role in this survey as many dogs and cats were infected with more than one parasite and also were unlikely to have been subjected to frequent anthelmintic treatments. Interestingly we have noticed an increasing incidence in positive G. duodenalis cases in dog samples submitted to the University College Dublin, Veterinary Hospital Parasitology laboratory over the last 10 years (Lawlor, 2022 unpublished data). The clinical significance is unclear as most infections in immunocompetent animals are asymptomatic, but it may be an important zoonosis. G. duodenalis is regarded as one of the 5 most important parasitic diseases of humans in Europe [69]. However, most molecular studies have reported that cats and dogs are mostly (but not exclusively) infected with host-specific parasites [25,70]. An old study [71] on the risk factors for people becoming infected with G. duodenalis through exposure to companion animals, found that dog, cat or farm animal contact was not a risk factor for giardiosis in humans, while a more recent study from the UK [16] found only the host-specific G. duodenalis assemblages C and D in rescue shelter dogs. A recent review by Cai et al. [25] concluded that the zoonotic transmission of G. duodenalis is probably less common than believed and that it could perhaps mainly be attributed to the contamination or contact with just a few species of animals such as rabbits, guinea pigs, equines, nonhuman primates, chinchillas, and beavers.
Toxocara spp. are the most common ascarid of dogs and cats, and in this study, it was also the most frequent helminth detected in both dogs (139/789; 17.6%) and cats (56/241; 23.2%). Infection rates were also higher in the younger cohort (26% & 32%, respectively). These results are in general agreement with many other studies where prevalence ranged in cats and dogs from 8–76% [72] and 1–30% [49,73] in Europe, respectively, and to previous results in Ireland of 16% and 30% in dogs and cats, respectively [34]. The higher prevalence in cats may be attributable to the route of transmission (lactogenic), different environments and food supply and eating behaviour of cats [74]. Human toxocarosis is the most common parasitic infection from pets [75] so it would be important that proper biosecurity involving disinfection and cleaning schedule be followed in animal rescue centers. ESCCAP emphasises the picking up and disposal of animal faeces (https://www.esccap.org/page/GL6+Control+of+Intestinal+Protozoa+in+Dogs+and+Cats/30/ (accessed on 28 November 2022)) and good hygiene after playing with animals as important preventative measures.
The only hookworm in Ireland is Uncinaria stenocephala, and prevalence of infection in this study was generally low with only 5% of dogs and 3% of cats infected (Figure 1 and Figure 3), similar to the previous findings in Ireland (5% of dogs, 0% cats) [34] and Germany (1% in dogs) [49].
In general, the coproantigen ELISA have a greater sensitivity for the detection of parasites compared to conventional centrifugal-flotation techniques [76] and can detect nematode antigens before infections become patent [31,32]. This is useful as a surveillance test where parasite egg levels may be very low.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, a weakness of the study was that the previous history of parasite control of the animals was unknown or for how long they have been homeless as this may have had an influence on the parasite prevalence recorded here. Nevertheless, this study provides updated information on the prevalence of parasite infections in a population of unwanted and stray dogs and cats in the greater Dublin area in Ireland, confirming a high prevalence of parasite infection. Since they are not subjected to regular anthelmintic treatment, live in synanthropic conditions and can roam over vast distances they can contaminate public areas, and pose a risk to both humans and owned pets that utilise these spaces [77,78,79]. It is therefore important that animal shelters adopt good hygiene and sanitary approaches in order to prevent contamination of the environment, to protect workers against zoonotic pathogens, to raise public awareness and to increase knowledge on zoonotic parasites.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, T.d.W. and S.A.; methodology, T.d.W., A.L. and M.J.; formal analysis, D.S.; investigation, T.d.W., S.A., T.G., M.J. and D.S.; resources, T.G. and M.J.; data curation, T.d.W., A.L., M.J. and D.S.; writing—original draft preparation, T.d.W.; writing—review and editing, S.A., A.L., T.G. and D.S.; visualisation, D.S.; supervision, T.d.W.; project administration, T.d.W.; funding acquisition, T.d.W. and T.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded in part by ESCCAP UK & Ireland, and the UCD Undergraduate Student Research fund.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data is not publicly available.

Conflicts of Interest

T.G., M.J. and D.S. are employees of IDEXX. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Traversa, D. Pet roundworms and hookworms: A continuing need for global worming. Parasites Vectors 2012, 5, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Baneth, G.; Thamsborg, S.M.; Otranto, D.; Guillot, J.; Blaga, R.; Deplazes, P.; Solano-Gallego, L. Major parasitic zoonoses associated with dogs and cats in Europe. J. Comp. Pathol. 2016, 155, S54–S74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Magnaval, J.F.; Glickman, L.T.; Dorchies, P.; Morassin, B. Highlights of human toxocariasis. Korean J. Parasitol. 2001, 39, 4512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Macpherson, C.N.L. The epidemiology and public health importance of toxocariasis: A zoonosis of global importance. Int. J. Parasitol. 2013, 43, 999–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Sariego, I.; Kanobana, K.; Rojas, L.; Speybroeck, N.; Polman, K.; Núñez, F.A. Toxocariasis in Cuba: A literature review. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2012, 6, e1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Rubinsky-Elefant, G.; Hirata, C.E.; Yamamoto, J.H.; Ferreira, M.U. Human toxocariasis: Diagnosis, worldwide seroprevalences and clinical expression of the systemic and ocular forms. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasitol. 2010, 104, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Dado, D.; Izquierdo, F.; Vera, O.; Montoya, A.; Mateo, M.; Fenoy, S.; Galván, A.L.; García, S.; García, A.; Aránguez, E.; et al. Detection of zoonotic intestinal parasites in public parks of spain. Potential epidemiological role of Microsporidia. Zoonoses Public Health 2012, 59, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dubná, S.; Langrová, I.; Jankovská, I.; Vadlejch, J.; Pekár, S.; Nápravník, J.; Fechtner, J. Contamination of soil with Toxocara eggs in urban (Prague) and rural areas in the Czech Republic. Vet. Parasitol. 2007, 144, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gawor, J.; Borecka, A.; Zarnowska, H.; Marczyńska, M.; Dobosz, S. Environmental and personal risk factors for toxocariasis in children with diagnosed disease in urban and rural areas of central Poland. Vet. Parasitol. 2008, 155, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Blaszkowska, J.; Wojcik, A.; Kurnatowski, P.; Szwabe, K. Geohelminth egg contamination of children’s play areas in the city of Lodz (Poland). Vet. Parasitol. 2013, 192, 228–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Otero, D.; Alho, A.M.; Nijsse, R.; Roelfsema, J.; Overgaauw, P.; Madeira de Carvalho, L. Environmental contamination with Toxocara spp. eggs in public parks and playground sandpits of Greater Lisbon, Portugal. J. Infect. Public Health 2018, 11, 94–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Vanhee, M.; Dalemans, A.C.; Viaene, J.; Depuydt, L.; Claerebout, E. Toxocara in sandpits of public playgrounds and kindergartens in Flanders (Belgium). Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2015, 1–2, 51–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Smith, A.F.; Rock, M.; Neumann, N.; Massolo, A. Urban park-related risks for Giardia spp. infection in dogs. Epidemiol. Infect. 2015, 143, 3277–3291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Agresti, A.; Berrilli, F.; Maestrini, M.; Guadano Procesi, I.; Loretti, E.; Vonci, N.; Perrucci, S. Prevalence, Risk Factors and Genotypes of Giardia duodenalis in Sheltered Dogs in Tuscany (Central Italy). Pathogens 2022, 11, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Adell-Aledón, M.; Köster, P.C.; de Lucio, A.; Puente, P.; Hernández-de-Mingo, M.; Sánchez-Thevenet, P.; Dea-Ayuela, M.A.; Carmena, D. Occurrence and molecular epidemiology of Giardia duodenalis infection in dog populations in eastern Spain. BMC Vet. Res. 2018, 14, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Upjohn, M.; Cobb, C.; Monger, J.; Geurden, T.; Claerebout, E.; Fox, M. Prevalence, molecular typing and risk factor analysis for Giardia duodenalis infections in dogs in a central London rescue shelter. Vet. Parasitol. 2010, 172, 341–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gil, H.; Cano, L.; de Lucio, A.; Bailo, B.; de Mingo, M.H.; Cardona, G.A.; Fernández-Basterra, J.A.; Aramburu-Aguirre, J.; López-Molina, N.; Carmena, D. Detection and molecular diversity of Giardia duodenalis and Cryptosporidium spp. in sheltered dogs and cats in Northern Spain. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2017, 50, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sommer, M.F.; Beck, R.; Ionita, M.; Stefanovska, J.; Vasić, A.; Zdravković, N.; Hamel, D.; Rehbein, S.; Knaus, M.; Mitrea, I.L.; et al. Multilocus sequence typing of canine Giardia duodenalis from South Eastern European countries. Parasitol. Res. 2015, 114, 2165–2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Piekara-Stępińska, A.; Piekarska, J.; Gorczykowski, M.; Bania, J. Genotypes of Giardia duodenalis in household dogs and cats from Poland. Acta Parasitol. 2021, 66, 428–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bouzid, M.; Halai, K.; Jeffreys, D.; Hunter, P.R. The prevalence of Giardia infection in dogs and cats, a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence studies from stool samples. Vet. Parasitol. 2015, 207, 181–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Caccio, S.M. Molecular epidemiology of human cryptosporidiosis. Parassitologia 2005, 47, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  22. Thompson, R.C.A.; Smith, A. Zoonotic enteric protozoa. Vet. Parasitol. 2011, 182, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Tysnes, K.R.; Skancke, E.; Robertson, L.J. Subclinical Giardia in dogs: A veterinary conundrum relevant to human infection. Trends Parasitol. 2014, 30, 520–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Traub, R.J.; Monis, P.T.; Robertson, I.; Irwin, P.; Mencke, N.; Thompson, R.C.A. Epidemiological and molecular evidence supports the zoonotic transmission of Giardia among humans and dogs living in the same community. Parasitology 2004, 128, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Cai, W.; Ryan, U.; Xiao, L.; Feng, Y. Zoonotic giardiasis: An update. Parasitol. Res. 2021, 120, 4199–4218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zajac, A.M.; Conboy, G.A. Veterinary Clinical Parasitology, 8th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  27. Saeed, I.S.; Kapel, C.M.O. Population dynamics and epidemiology of Toxocara canis in danish red foxes. J. Parasitol. 2006, 92, 1196–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fraser, A.; Craig, P.S. Detection of gastrointestinal helminth infections using coproantigen and molecular diagnostic approaches. J. Helminthol. 1997, 71, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Khurana, S.; Chaudhary, P. Laboratory diagnosis of cryptosporidiosis. Trop. Parasitol. 2018, 8, 2–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Olson, M.E.; Leonard, N.J.; Strout, J. Prevalence and diagnosis of Giardia infection in dogs and cats using a fecal antigen test and fecal smear. Can. Vet. J. 2010, 51, 640–642. [Google Scholar]
  31. Elsemore, D.A.; Geng, J.; Flynn, L.; Cruthers, L.; Lucio-Forster, A.; Bowman, D.D. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for coproantigen detection of Trichuris vulpis in dogs. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 2014, 26, 404–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Elsemore, D.A.; Geng, J.; Cote, J.; Hanna, R.; Lucio-Forster, A.; Bowman, D.D. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for coproantigen detection of Ancylostoma caninum and Toxocara canis in dogs and Toxocara cati in cats. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 2017, 29, 645–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Geng, J.; Elsemore, D.A.; Oudin, N.; Ketzis, J.K. Diagnosis of feline whipworm infection using a coproantigen ELISA and the prevalence in feral cats in southern Florida. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2018, 14, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Garcia-Campos, A.; Power, C.; O’Shaughnessy, J.; Browne, C.; Lawlor, A.; McCarthy, G.; O’Neill, E.J.; de Waal, T. One-year parasitological screening of stray dogs and cats in County Dublin, Ireland. Parasitology 2019, 146, 746–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Villeneuve, A.; Polley, L.; Jenkins, E.; Schurer, J.; Gilleard, J.; Kutz, S.; Conboy, G.; Benoit, D.; Seewald, W.; Gagné, F. Parasite prevalence in fecal samples from shelter dogs and cats across the Canadian provinces. Parasites Vectors 2015, 8, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Hoggard, K.R.; Jarriel, D.M.; Bevelock, T.J.; Verocai, G.G. Prevalence survey of gastrointestinal and respiratory parasites of shelter cats in northeastern Georgia, USA. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2019, 16, 100270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Loftin, C.M.; Donnett, U.B.; Schneider, L.G.; Varela-Stokes, A.S. Prevalence of endoparasites in northern Mississippi shelter cats. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2019, 18, 100322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Alvarado-Esquivel, C.; Romero-Salas, D.; Aguilar-Domínguez, M.; Cruz-Romero, A.; Ibarra-Priego, N.; Pérez-de-León, A.Á. Epidemiological assessment of intestinal parasitic infections in dogs at animal shelter in Veracruz, Mexico. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2015, 5, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Trasviña-Muñoz, E.; López-Valencia, G.; Centeno, P.Á.; Cueto-González, S.A.; Monge-Navarro, F.J.; Tinoco-Gracia, L.; Núñez-Castro, K.; Pérez-Ortiz, P.; Medina-Basulto, G.E.; Tamayo-Sosa, A.R.; et al. Prevalence and distribution of intestinal parasites in stray dogs in the northwest area of Mexico. Austral J. Vet. Sci. 2017, 49, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Trasviña-Muñoz, E.; López-Valencia, G.; Monge-Navarro, F.J.; Herrera-Ramírez, J.C.; Haro, P.; Gómez-Gómez, S.D.; Mercado-Rodríguez, J.A.; Flores-Dueñas, C.A.; Cueto-Gonzalez, S.A.; Burquez-Escobedo, M. Detection of intestinal parasites in stray dogs from a farming and cattle region of northwestern Mexico. Pathogens 2020, 9, 516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Khademvatan, S.; Abdizadeh, R.; Rahim, F.; Hashemitabar, M.; Ghasemi, M.; Tavalla, M. Stray cats gastrointestinal parasites and its association with public health in Ahvaz City, South Western of Iran. Jundishapur. J. Microbiol. 2014, 7, e11079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Hassan, F.H.; Barzinji, K.R.A.A. Epidemiological survey on stray dogs and cats gastro-intestinal parasites in Kirkuk province, Iraq. Kirkuk Univ. J. Sci. Stud. 2018, 13, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Minnaar, W.N.; Krecek, R.C.; Fourie, L.J. Helminths in dogs from a peri-urban resource-limited community in Free State Province, South Africa. Vet. Parasitol. 2002, 107, 343–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Duarte, A.; Castro, I.; Pereira da Fonseca, I.M.; Almeida, V.; Madeira de Carvalho, L.M.; Meireles, J.; Fazendeiro, M.I.; Tavares, L.; Vaz, Y. Survey of infectious and parasitic diseases in stray cats at the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal. J. Feline Med. Surg. 2010, 12, 441–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. de Lara da Silva, C.E.; Oyama, J.; Ferreira, F.B.P.; de Paula Lalucci-Silva, M.P.; Lordani, T.V.A.; de Lara da Silva, R.C.; de Souza Terron Monich, M.; Teixeira, J.J.V.; Lonardoni, M.V.C. Effect of essential oils on Leishmania amazonensis: A systematic review. Parasitology 2020, 147, 1392–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Miró, G.; Mateo, M.; Montoya, A.; Vela, E.; Calonge, R. Survey of intestinal parasites in stray dogs in the Madrid area and comparison of the efficacy of three anthelmintics in naturally infected dogs. Parasitol. Res. 2007, 100, 317–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Blasco, X.; Salas, A.; Manuelian, C.; Torre, C.; Ortuño, A. Intestinal parasitic infection in multi-cat shelters in Catalonia. Isr. J. Vet. Med. 2017, 72, 16–21. [Google Scholar]
  48. Tull, A.; Valdmann, H.; Rannap, R.; Kaasiku, T.; Tammeleht, E.; Saarma, U. Free-ranging rural dogs are highly infected with helminths, contaminating environment nine times more than urban dogs. J. Helminthol. 2022, 96, e19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Becker, A.C.; Rohen, M.; Epe, C.; Schnieder, T. Prevalence of endoparasites in stray and fostered dogs and cats in Northern Germany. Parasitol. Res. 2012, 111, 849–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Szwabe, K.; Blaszkowska, J. Stray dogs and cats as potential sources of soil contamination with zoonotic parasites. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2017, 24, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hill, S.L.; Cheney, J.M.; Taton-Allen, G.F.; Reif, J.S.; Bruns, C.; Lappin, M.R. Prevalence of enteric zoonotic organisms in cats. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2000, 216, 687–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Köchle, B.R.; Garijo-Toledo, M.M.; Llobat, L.; Sansano-Maestre, J. Prevalence of Toxocara eggs in public parks in the city of Valencia (Eastern Spain). Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Ketzis, J.K.; Shell, L.; Chinault, S.; Pemberton, C.; Pereira, M.M. The prevalence of Trichuris spp. infection in indoor and outdoor cats on St. Kitts. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2015, 9, 111–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Krecek, R.C.; Moura, L.; Lucas, H.; Kelly, P. Parasites of stray cats (Felis domesticus L., 1758) on St. Kitts, West Indies. Vet. Parasitol. 2010, 172, 147–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Traversa, D. Are we paying too much attention to cardio-pulmonary nematodes and neglecting old-fashioned worms like Trichuris vulpis? Parasites Vectors 2011, 4, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Kotwa, J.D.; French, S.K.; Greer, T.; Elsemore, D.A.; Hanna, R.; Jardine, C.M.; Pearl, D.L.; Weese, J.S.; Mercer, N.; Peregrine, A.S. Prevalence of intestinal parasites in dogs in southern Ontario, Canada, based on fecal samples tested using sucrose double centrifugation and Fecal Dx® tests. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2021, 26, 100618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Overgaauw, P.A.; Boersema, J.H. Nematode infections in dog breeding kennels in The Netherlands, with special reference to Toxocara. Vet. Q. 1998, 20, 12–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Vanparijs, O.; Hermans, L.; van der Flaes, L. Helminth and protozoan parasites in dogs and cats in Belgium. Vet. Parasitol. 1991, 38, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Little, S.E.; Johnson, E.M.; Lewis, D.; Jaklitsch, R.P.; Payton, M.E.; Blagburn, B.L.; Bowman, D.D.; Moroff, S.; Tams, T.; Rich, L.; et al. Prevalence of intestinal parasites in pet dogs in the United States. Vet. Parasitol. 2009, 166, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fok, E.; Szatmári, V.; Busák, K.; Rozgonyi, F. Epidemiology: Prevalence of intestinal parasites in dogs in some urban and rural areas of Hungary. Vet. Q. 2001, 23, 96–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Scaramozzino, P.; Carvelli, A.; Iacoponi, F.; De Liberato, C. Endoparasites in household and shelter dogs from Central Italy. Int. J. Vet. Sci. Med. 2018, 6, 45–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dunn, J.J.; Columbus, S.T.; Aldeen, W.E.; Davis, M.; Carroll, K.C. Trichuris vulpis recovered from a patient with chronic diarrhea and five dogs. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2002, 40, 2703–2704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Epe, C.; Rehkter, G.; Schnieder, T.; Lorentzen, L.; Kreienbrock, L. Giardia in symptomatic dogs and cats in Europe—Results of a European study. Vet. Parasitol. 2010, 173, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Claerebout, E.; Casaert, S.; Dalemans, A.C.; De Wilde, N.; Levecke, B.; Vercruysse, J.; Geurden, T. Giardia and other intestinal parasites in different dog populations in Northern Belgium. Vet. Parasitol. 2009, 161, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Szénási, Z.; Marton, S.; Kucsera, I.; Tánczos, B.; Horváth, K.; Orosz, E.; Lukács, Z.; Szeidemann, Z. Preliminary investigation of the prevalence and genotype distribution of Giardia intestinalis in dogs in Hungary. Parasitol. Res. 2007, 101, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Papini, R.; Gorini, G.; Spaziani, A.; Cardini, G. Survey on giardiosis in shelter dog populations. Vet. Parasitol. 2005, 128, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Ortuño, A.; Scorza, V.; Castellà, J.; Lappin, M. Prevalence of intestinal parasites in shelter and hunting dogs in Catalonia, Northeastern Spain. Vet. J. 2014, 199, 465–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bugg, R.J.; Robertson, I.D.; Elliot, A.D.; Thompson, R.C. Gastrointestinal parasites of urban dogs in Perth, Western Australia. Vet. J. 1999, 157, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cito, F.; Rijks, J.; Rantsios, A.T.; Cunningham, A.A.; Baneth, G.; Guardabassi, L.; Kuiken, T.; Giovannini, A. Prioritization of Companion Animal Transmissible Diseases for Policy Intervention in Europe. J. Comp. Pathol. 2016, 155, S18–S26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Ballweber, L.R.; Xiao, L.; Bowman, D.D.; Kahn, G.; Cama, V.A. Giardiasis in dogs and cats: Update on epidemiology and public health significance. Trends Parasitol. 2010, 26, 180–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chute, C.G.; Smith, R.P.; Baron, J.A. Risk factors for endemic giardiasis. Am. J. Public Health 1987, 77, 585–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Overgaauw, P.A.M.; Nederland, V. Aspects of Toxocara epidemiology: Toxocarosis in dogs and cats. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 1997, 23, 233–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Schnieder, T.; Laabs, E.-M.; Welz, C. Larval development of Toxocara canis in dogs. Vet. Parasitol. 2011, 175, 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Overgaauw, P.A. Aspects of Toxocara epidemiology: Human toxocarosis. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 1997, 23, 215–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Schantz, P.M. Of worms, dogs, and human hosts: Continuing challenges for veterinarians in prevention of human disease. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1994, 204, 1023–1028. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  76. Little, S.E.; Barrett, A.W.; Beall, M.J.; Bowman, D.D.; Dangoudoubiyam, S.; Elsemore, D.A.; Liotta, J.; Lucio-Forster, A.; McCrann, D.J.; Snowden, K.F.; et al. Coproantigen detection augments diagnosis of common nematode infections in dogs. Top Companion Anim. Med. 2019, 35, 42–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Glickman, L.T.; Schantz, P.M. Epidemiology and pathogenesis of zoonotic toxocariasis. Epidemiol. Rev. 1981, 3, 230–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mateus, T.L.; Castro, A.; Ribeiro, J.N.; Vieira-Pinto, M. Multiple zoonotic parasites identified in dog feces collected in Ponte de Lima, Portugal-a potential threat to human health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2014, 11, 9050–9067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Maria Braga Araújo, A.; Yasmin Teixeira Silva, B.; Maria Basílio Quezado de Castro, T. Soil contamination by zoonotic parasites in leisure areas: An integrative review. J. Trop. Pathol. 2021, 50, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 13 00137 g001 550
Figure 1. Prevalence of parasites detected in dogs.
Figure 1. Prevalence of parasites detected in dogs.
Animals 13 00137 g001
Animals 13 00137 g002 550
Figure 2. The relationship between faecal consistency and parasites detected in dog samples.
Figure 2. The relationship between faecal consistency and parasites detected in dog samples.
Animals 13 00137 g002
Animals 13 00137 g003 550
Figure 3. Prevalence of parasites detected in cats.
Figure 3. Prevalence of parasites detected in cats.
Animals 13 00137 g003
Animals 13 00137 g004 550
Figure 4. The relationship between faecal consistency and parasites detected in cat samples.
Figure 4. The relationship between faecal consistency and parasites detected in cat samples.
Animals 13 00137 g004
Table
Table 1. Age profile of dogs (n = 789) examined for endoparasites.
Table 1. Age profile of dogs (n = 789) examined for endoparasites.
Categoryn%
Unknown17121.7%
Adolescent39850.4%
Adult16020.3%
Senior465.8%
Geriatric141.8%
Table
Table 2. Prevalence of parasites detected in the different life stages of dogs.
Table 2. Prevalence of parasites detected in the different life stages of dogs.
ParasiteAdolescent (n = 398)Adult (n = 160)Senior (n = 46)Geriatric (n = 14)Unknown (n = 171)
n%n%n%n%n%
Giardia12531.43220.01226.1321.43319.3
Hookworm266.585.048.70-42.3
Ascarid10526.41710.612.20-169.4
Whipworm10.30-0-0-0-
Table
Table 3. Life stages of cats (n = 241) examined for endoparasites.
Table 3. Life stages of cats (n = 241) examined for endoparasites.
Categoryn%
Unknown5522.8
Adolescent6225.7
Adult11447.3
Senior83.3
Geriatric20.8
Table
Table 4. Prevalence of parasites detected in the different age categories of cats.
Table 4. Prevalence of parasites detected in the different age categories of cats.
ParasiteAdolescent (n = 62)%Adult (n = 114)%Senior (n = 8)%Geriatric (n = 2)%Unknown (n = 55)%
nnnnn
Giardia1321.01311.4112.50-47.3
Ascarid2032.32118.4112.50-1425.5
Hookworm34.843.50-0-0-
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

de Waal, T.; Aungier, S.; Lawlor, A.; Goddu, T.; Jones, M.; Szlosek, D. Retrospective Survey of Dog and Cat Endoparasites in Ireland: Antigen Detection. Animals 2023, 13, 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13010137

AMA Style

de Waal T, Aungier S, Lawlor A, Goddu T, Jones M, Szlosek D. Retrospective Survey of Dog and Cat Endoparasites in Ireland: Antigen Detection. Animals. 2023; 13(1):137. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13010137

Chicago/Turabian Style

de Waal, Theo, Sandra Aungier, Amanda Lawlor, Troy Goddu, Matthew Jones, and Donald Szlosek. 2023. "Retrospective Survey of Dog and Cat Endoparasites in Ireland: Antigen Detection" Animals 13, no. 1: 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13010137

APA Style

de Waal, T., Aungier, S., Lawlor, A., Goddu, T., Jones, M., & Szlosek, D. (2023). Retrospective Survey of Dog and Cat Endoparasites in Ireland: Antigen Detection. Animals, 13(1), 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13010137

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop